Talk:Timeline of Gamergate/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 24 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Source

Copied from [1] with permission from the author. Typhoon (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

My vote is to fact-check it, add any omitted events, and add it to the main article at the bottom. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 16:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Any way to log the permission? Also, do they realize that this effectively licenses this under the same CC-BY-SA license as RW, with everything that this implies?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. The following note was added at the top of the linked source above: "Feel free to repost this timeline under CC-BY-SA or a similar license." Typhoon (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As is?

It currently doesn't have any 'leave it as-is' disclaimer, so I'm going to go in and fix and typos and so forth. If the intention is to leave it untouched, revert them and maybe add that disclaimer. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ehmergerd, much SJW bias and shitz.

Seems alright, and even conforms to my view of it: Everybody involved is a fucking cretin.--Madman (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Including the guy who went from pretending to be "somebody who doesn't give a shit" to deleting the page, another user's talk page and blocking them screaming "Shillgate" within hours?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Chill, ZooGuard. Statements of this sort tend to stand pretty well on their own. Raising objections about MadmanJohnson's character that take a bit of interpretation and reading to get just makes things get ad hominemish faster. Ikanreed (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm chill. I just find MJ's conduct during the whole affair amusing.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Totally fair. I'll restrain my urge to restrain the imagined urges of others. Ikanreed (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In all truth, I was planning to utilize the Streisand effect to draw in idiots to the wiki. --Madman (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman

*doubt* The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Norman's edit

Editors invited you to make the changes you wanted. This is good. Wikis are supposed to be contentious, but phrasing things in passive voice to deflect blame from those who actually did things isn't going to improve the article.

There's a reason every professional style guide recommends avoiding passive voice. It places ambiguity and uncertainty into places where it does not belong. It's associated with an unwillingness to attribute actions to people and people almost always use it with respect to negative actions. You can certainly try again, but that was a bad edit. Ikanreed (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What did he mean by "almost simultaneously"? Is this some GG conspiracy theory? Norman, cease whitewashing the article with rumours. Typhoon (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what he meant, but it didn't matter much to me either. If his phrasing is going to betray a biased intent to disguise meaning, it's not good material to me. I'm going to stop pressing him about when he just starts just getting the facts wrong instead of being purposefully misleading. Ikanreed (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ikanreed, I responded to you on my talk page. I didn't disguise any meaning. I accurately described Brennans behavior and simply left the act of subsuming this description under the definition of doxxing to the reader, because it wasn't a clear-cut case of doxxing due to doxxing usually entailing the compilation of dossiers and not just their publication. And Typhoon, great job making the Jan. 16 entry talk about "members of stuff" again. --Norman (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Fear not, the evil spelling error was taken care of! Also, I'm sure the victims of GG's harassment will appreciate your explanation of the proper use of the word "doxxing". Typhoon (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that the victims of Anti-GG harassment will appreciate it, too. Either way, I couldn't care less. Contrary to what people these days seem to believe, being a victim does not entitle you to change the definition of terms to your liking. --Norman (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What anti-GG harassment? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 02:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This one, or that one, for starters. The latter decided against attributing her doxxing to Anti-GG, to be fair, because she doesn't believe in guilt by association. Make of that whatever you want. --Norman (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So your proof is a tumblr page that seems to consider any negative tweet about GG to be "harrasment" and lizzyf620's letter that actually refuses to blame this "anti-gg" for the doxxing? Typhoon (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that tumblr page is waaaaay too sensitive to jumping to conclusions and critical views. But there are valid examples in there if you dig (Par exemple, this one). For the most part, they're largely either lone wolf stuff or a few people bandied around a particular person, I believe. Noir LeSable (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. A lot of stuff that no one cares about, but also some very valid examples. Now, to get to Liz F: Yes, she doesn't blame Anti-GG, because she doesn't believe in guilt by association. Unlike her, however, RationalWiki - or at least the contentmakers of the GG-related articles - didn't go out of its/their way to explain that there's no such thing as guilt by association, so it's not like it/they shares this sentiment. --Norman (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You aren't aware of some of the anti-GG retaliatory stuff happening, FCP? The amount of crap being done by the GG crowd pretty much eclipses the stuff going the other way, but that doesn't mean people who are being too self-righteous about anti-GG aren't innocent of doxxing and harassment either. It's been disappointing to see some people stoop to that level, honestly. Noir LeSable (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reminder that "anti-GG" is a term invented by GG to describe anyone who disagrees with them as part of a unified pro-corruption crowd. There is no "anti-GG". There are, however, many people who find GG's methods of doxxing and harassment to be disgusting and are criticising it for that. Typhoon (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok? I didn't claim that there was some monolithic "pro-corruption" force determined to harass anyone who says anything remotely positive about GG, just that there are people or groups that take the "Justice" bit of Social Justice too seriously. What else am I supposed to call people who don't like Gamergate/Gamerghazi but resort to underhanded tactics as a response? Noir LeSable (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no Anti-GG, Eh? Are you and Boreman willing to admit, by said logic, one cannot be against Dipshitgate? Would that make you a harasser who most likely has guns in his mom's Prius and is plotting to assassinate female game developers by jumping off buildings wearing a cape made of cannabis? Or are we all brains in a jar? Are all odd numbers prime? Will this farce ever shut the hell up so I can get back to Doom modding?--Madman (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

It is true that you are forced at gunpoint to edit here - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

October 19: Confirmed false-flag operation

Here's the summary: https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/4/4b/Newsagal0.png Feel free to look at the individual tweets too, I don't feel like linking them. To cut a long story short (because I know Ryulong doesn't read anything longer than a few lines): @TheRat tries to drive Chloe Sagal to commit suicide while pretending to be a follower of #GamerGate. Later confirms that he's actually Anti-GamerGate. The end. --Norman (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh man, a patented GG infographic with arrows hosted on Encyclopedia Dramatica. The same place that tries to drive many people to commit suicide (including Chloe). How ethical of you. Anyway who's @TheRat? Apart of being a member of the evil anti-GG that in fact doesn't exist and was created as a term by GG to imply that anyone who is disgusted or horrified of gators doxing and harassing people is part of an evil hypocritical group. Typhoon (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand. This is what I see: (A) @TheGhostRat encourages suicide. Asshole. (B) @TheGhostRat calls 8chan stupid, gullible, and MRA. (C) @RuffledSympathy says Gamergate is stupid. Where in the image does @TheGhostRat come out as anti-GG? And how is one user being an asshole and using #GamerGate even close to a "false-flag operation"? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 17:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What does this at all have to do with Gamergate as a whole? Probably nothing at all as usual. Norman, please find better shit next time, particularly shit that isn't a Gamergate manufactured conspiracy. One asshole who is claimed to have faked sympathy with Gamergate while also happening to join in in the harassment of one of Gamergate's many targets is not a false flag. That requires extensive planning and the obvious attempt at manufacturing controversy, like the one time where people found posts on 8chan where they planned a false flag dox event (fake information but a real name of one person in Gamergate who decided to take the fall for the others) in order to say that they were totally being harassed too, guys.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Gloating about "dumbfounding" GamerGate while mentioning Sarah Butts? Nah, sure, that's not an admission of guilt at all! And Ryulong, please, stop it. The entire anti-GamerGate movement would be better off if you didn't shitpost all the time. It's people like you who prevent a real discourse from happening. --Norman (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

One thing I forgot: What exactly, Ryulong, has Brennan's article about eugenics to do with GamerGate? I'll tell you what: Jackshit, but you still want to keep it because it portrays GamerGate in a bad light. Isn't that so, Ryu? --Norman (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Norman, everyone agrees that assholes exist on the anti-GG side. But GG assholes vastly outnumber anti-GG assholes, and when GG assholes do their assholery, they often dox or stalk or threaten or set out to actively and significantly harm their target; this anti-GG trolling is terrible, but not violent-rape-threat terrible. Also, I'm still confused as to why @RuffledSympathy is there. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It has to do with Gamergate because Brennan is intrinsically part of Gamergate. He is a public figure who actively revels in Gamergate and uses it to his own ends. Whoever this @TheGhostRat is is a non-entity that no one has ever heard of other than Gators like yourself trying to find the smallest possible way to paint "anti-GG" as evil and therefore justify the actions of the legion. Also how is this shitposting? I'm merely telling you how your logic is utter shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You know who's not a non-entity? Anita Sarkeesian. Yet this site goes out of its way to avoid discussion about her claims, unless they are directly related to GamerGate. Why is everything Brennan says or does important, but not everything Sarkeesian says or does, despite her being even more high-profile than Brennan? --Norman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

No, RationalWiki covered Anita Sarkeesian long before Gamergate and really all that exists on her on the website concerns thunderf00t's hamfisted attempts at debunking feminism and her "critics'" various arguments about how she is wrong. I honestly don't know what else you expect to be covered about her other than all the hate that she has received as a result of the 4chan MRA manbaby demographic. Meanwhile, there's plenty about what people think she is claiming. Meanwhile, one of Gamergate's head honchos writing an article in favor of eugenics for a white supremacist website seems somewhat important to cover.

Now perhaps you can answer a question for me. What ever happened to the "4chan is not your personal army" mantra? Because all you idiots have done since last year is be the personal army of one loser after another. First it was Eron Gjoni. Then it was Rogue Star. Then it was Milo and CH Sommers. Throw in Davis Aurini, Jordan Owen, Alexander Macris, James Desborough, and whoever else I can't remember in there somewhere. Now it's Mark "$3M Bus" Kern. None of these people give a shit about "ethics in video game journalism". They want to use you fucks to take revenge on the people they believe have slighted them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"You fucks". How eloquent. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth, too? --Norman (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice deflection there.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, call it whatever you want. I don't feel like debating someone who can't even invoke the ad hominem-fallacy without breaking a limb. --Norman (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Good, so we're done with this then. No "false flag" conspiracy theory shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Who said we're done? Oh, yes, you do. Not me. What did I tell you about how much I respect your opinion? --Norman (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon, FuzzyCatPotato, and myself both believe that your proposed addition is of no merit to this page. This is what we call a "consensus".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Then you, Typhoon and FuzzyCatPotato are wrong. I couldn't care less about your consensus, really. --Norman (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't oppose this addition. Add it in, with commentary explaining how GG blew it out of proportion and how GG is vastly worse. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's truly blown out of proportion. But it certainly has nothing to do with ethics in video game journalism so maybe you're right that it has a place in the timeline expressly for that reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian Effect breakup and makeup?

This was really quite hilarious. There's the best refs I could find in the relevant para in Davis Aurini - David Gerard (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I forgot all about this in the prepared sock furor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

R. Dawkins

The entry under March 2015 indicates that Richard Dawkins is indignant about being blocked. As he has stated, his issue is not with his being blocked/ignored/whatall, but with being publicly labeled as, among other things, a rape apologist and a racist (here). That such statements, if shown false (and a couple other conditions), would be a cause of action (libel) as claimed is noteworthy, but at any rate, misquoting the man is not the correct way to write an article here. I would just change this myself, but I feel that in this case the cautious course of action might be in order. PacWalker 04:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL, at Dawkins complaining about "libel". I'll just leave this here Typhoon (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Trying to get me to dislike him more might implicate one of Zeno's paradoces. Still, describing bull as differentr bull is not exactly what we try to do here. 104.5.9.13 (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

^I claim responsibility for this BoN post; was on phone and forgot to sign in, despite ceiling cat. PacWalker 18:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is fine. The main point of public figure opinion-havers is to be disagreed with and disliked. That's the secret to making 24 hour news networks profitable, BTW. God only knows the entirely justified hate I'd draw if I somehow managed to become a professional opinion-haver. But... free speech hypocrites are the worst. I detest them. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Willingness to go to a real court is not a powerful criterion - David Gerard (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

April 3 - Randi Harper, author of ggautoblocker, undergoes attempted Swatting

Note- the article is locked so I cannot post this there. Id appreciate any suggestions for improvements, formatting advice, reference advice, .... Thanks.

On April 3, Randi Harper, author of ggautoblocker, posted that she had been Swatted. She claimed the police visit was with weapons holstered because she had filed a report earlier in the year alerting them to the probability of her being swatted.

reddit's KotakuInAction, the Ralph Retort, Encyclopedia Dramatica, 8chan, and Ars Technica Forums, each contained numerous comments claiming she had faked the swatting, or claiming that she had falsified the police report documents she posted.

Game Politics later published an article confirming the police visit with the Oakland, California police department.

^{— Unsigned, by: ToshiroYoshiaki / talk / contribs}

References

We're not citing KiA, Ralph, ED, or 8chan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can call GamePolitics RS enough to write something about this though. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Her blog is fine and dandy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If you say "board X contained messages saying YZ" then its kind of hard to prove that it happened unless you cite either the board you are talking about or an archive of it. ToshiroYoshiaki (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Harper's blog is being used to cite the fact that she says someone tried to call the swat team in on her. The information is included and we don't really need anything beyond that. Why do you keep bringing this back?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Early April - Patreon closes Encyclopedia Dramatica's account

In early April, Patreon closed the account of Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED), a wiki that included numerous articles on public internet figures, including some antiGamerGate individuals, and listed as "approved" by gamergate.me. Patreon's website indicated the account was removed "for not complying with Patreon Community Guidelines" ^{— Unsigned, by: ToshiroYoshiaki / talk / contribs}

References

ED is its own thing though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

GaymerX

Isn't on the timeline? Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 06:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This list was originally cribbed from /r/GamerGhazi and maybe they didn't have it. I can't remember what happened with them though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I was about to say "It was very recent," but it turns out that it goes all the way back to December. It was the usual "accidental ambiguous tweet" business, and GG was mad that they decided to clarify. They kept saying that GaymerX needed them to protect the con from "SJW bullies." The abuse from GG led to them employing a block-bot and officially denouncing Gamergate. Intel began supporting them in March, which led to fits being thrown. There was a resurgence in GG-rage around the time of SMBC's monocle funding, which is actually related. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 08:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

#BaltimoreLootCrew

Thought I'd start a section so we can discuss. The meaning of this text is clear to me:

As the #BaltimoreLootCrew hashtag is revealed to be racists spreading lies, observers at /r/GamerGhazi identify some of the tweets in the article as prominent Gamergaters, including oft-cited #NotYourShield founder @j_millerworks. A troll group adds to the confusion, claiming to be Gamergate-affiliated and stating that they are "enforcing" GG.

this update (which I reverted, feel free to revert my revert) seems confusing:

As the #BaltimoreLootCrew hashtag is revealed to be racists spreading lies, observers at /r/GamerGhazi identify some of the tweets in the article as prominent Gamergaters, including oft-cited #NotYourShield founder @j_millerworks. Many associate the group with Gamergate-affiliated/nonaffiliated troll group "AyyTeam" as well.

You may know the Ayyteam from such incidents as "coopting then vandalizing Gamergate's 8chan board" which forced Gamergate to move to a new board. They've trolled GG more than anyone else so far so beyond the confusing phrasing the claim that they're "affiliated" seems incorrect... Sarah (HH) 17:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

AyyTeam and Gamergate are indistinguishable entities because Gamergate can't do shit to exclude anyone claiming they speak for them. Also RogueStar has on many occasions tried to join them. Also whatever petty infighting exists on 8chan cannot be adequately documented here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hold on man. If we went with your "indistinguishable ... because" logic then you could be part of GG just by claiming it? And that'd mean "GG likes Zoe Quinn", "GG got $$ from Gamerghazi." Mark Fields could tweet "the new Ford fusion is a sweet ride #Gamergate" and then GG likes Fords? Lol come on. Better to judge by actions than hashtags. If a group wrecks the GG board, repeatedly trolls GG, and trolls others to make GG look bad seems more likely they're anti-GG (as in not part of GG.) Sarah (HH) 18:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Trolling other to make GG look bad seems to be the core GG activity. :) Joking aside, by definition GG is entirely a matter of self-affiliation. To declare it a leaderless movement and then simultaneously claim that certain self-declared people aren't part of it seems like a classic No True Scotsman.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, and that's pretty consistent with why anonymous declares movements to be leaderless in the first place. Throw up your hands and declare "Not us, fakers" becomes trivial when there's no way to distinguish. You'd think after the first dozen times, they'd have learned that it makes them look like shit and actually police themselves somehow. But nope, anonymity is their highest ideal. Because greater fuckwad theory. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but one could make the same argument for "liberals" - there's no group membership, no official leadership (in the US at least.) If one or dozen guys says "I'm a liberal and I'm a devout mormon" it doesn't make liberals devout mormons. You'd have to see how many liberals are mormon: a fringe, a significant enough % that there's a "Devout moron" faction of liberals, the majority. That's reasonable right? Sarah (HH) 19:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not really a meaningful comparison because "liberal" has a definition that isn't related solely to group membership. Besides, you aren't saying that these people / groups aren't representative of GG, you are trying to claim they aren't GG at all. If you instead say they are a fringe of GG that would be different. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Right! Liberal is defined by a general set of beliefs - but who gets to define that set of beliefs if not the majority of those calling themselves liberals? It's the same with any unofficial group. Take environmentalists and ecoterrorists. The environmentalist movement isn't defined by ecoterrorists. They're part of the environmental movement because their beliefs (anti-deforestation, anti-pollution) overlap significantly with environmentalist beliefs but they're a fringe group because most environmentalists are anti-violence. If Ayyteam said (by word or deed) "we agree with all this Gamergate stuff and we're racists" then fine, they're a fringe GG group, but they haven't. All they say is "we're racists, we enjoy trolling and we enjoy getting GG in trouble." What part of that overlaps with what the majority of GG says? I've looked on 8chan, reddit, all the places GG congregates and I can't find it. Sarah (HH) 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Still not meaningful parallels. "Liberal" has meaning tied to its history. It isn't based on polling self-identified liberals. Ditto "environmentalist". It doesn't matter if what they say / do overlaps with what the majority of GG says (which is probably impossible to determine). If they self-identify as GG and / or do things that GG is doing (which does include trolling people in a way that makes GG look bad) there is no reasonable basis for claiming they aren't really part of GG. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

But how does a movement evolve if not by majority belief? How has the change in goals of say socialists over the last 100 years been effected? p.s. how come no article on Bernie Sanders? There's an article on a clearly lesser Bernie (Madoff) so people articles seem allowed here... Sarah (HH) 20:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you wanting to evolve gamergate? From what to what? And feel free to make a Bernie Sanders page.SpecialFFrog (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming we agree that unofficial movements evolve I'm trying to understand how you would define them (if not by majority belief) in a way that permits them to evolve. Cool about Bernie. Sarah (HH) 21:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

How do you determine what the majority of people in an unofficial movement believe? Also, if the evolution of Gamergate is relevant to this conversation, does that mean you think that activities like those of AyyTeam used to be a valid part of Gamergate but aren't any more? Otherwise I don't see what it has to do with anything. Besides, Gamergate is more like a mob than a movement. People in the mob may have an intended purpose but as a whole you can only assess the mob based on what it actually does.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No I don't think the activities of AyyTeam have ever represented Gamergate. This has to do with how we define unofficial movements. Determining what the majority believe is easy: we know GG-ers congregate on their boards on reddit and 8chan, so we go there and see what they have to say. Reddit even has counters to indicate the popularity of certain ideas. I'd say it's even easier now in the age of the internet.

I don't see why this strict "movement" standard seems only to be applied to Gamergate when we characterize most unofficial movements in the way I describe. Go to 4chan's /pol/ - and the majority of posts about "Jews" are anti-semitic, so we say "pol is antisemitic." If a dozen of us went there now and posted "I love Jews" or a few reformed posters declared their love for Gilbert Gottfried it wouldn't change anything - the majority define their beliefs. Sarah (HH) 22:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No you really couldn't and you now have 1 black mark in my invisible "intellectually dishonest" list. Honest people with shitty behavior get far better treatment from me than dishonest people with no official problems. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I advance a concrete argument, draw parallels - the hallmarks of honest debate - you're response is basically "no" and so I'm intellectually dishonest? Lol. Your marking has only marked yourself. Mark my words. Mark (HH) 19:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You advanced an argument you had to know was a shallow false comparison. That's intellectual dishonesty. Not copping to it and playing the "No U" card pretty much seals it. I'm now at zero sympathy. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The very nature of Gamergate is that it's a loose collection of trolls and bigots. That some trolls have at times grouped together under a different name and gone against Gamergate isn't necessarily meaningful because trolls are opportunists and often don't hold any strong allegiances. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The very nature of God is that than which nothing can be greater. And that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists in the imagination, ergo God must exist. Damn I think I just converted myself. Sarah (HH) 19:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Well if you got by Douglas Adams's logic of God. God i based off blind faith, if something proves god exists, there is no more blind faith, therefore god cannot exist. Bubba41102 ^{CUMON STEP IT UP} 19:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh I guess if a premise implies contradictory conclusions the premise must be false? You've unconverted me thanks. Sarah (HH) 20:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The point here is that AyyTeam just happens to be made up of prominent Gamergate shit stirrers. Simply because they're now acting to fuck with Gamergate does not take away from the fact that the guy who is said to have started #NotYourShield is lying to cause problems in Baltimore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

So the #NotYourShield guy tweeted "to stay in your best rioting shape I recommend a raw vegan diet" to fool people into thinking he was a real looter? Worst fooler ever. I do find it kind of ironic that you're arguing a few looters shouldn't define the protest movement - in an article where you characterize the motives of Gamergate movement by the actions of a few. Consider how your claim above would sound: "Looters and protestors are indistinguishable entities because protestors can't do shit to exclude anyone claiming they speak for them." - I would never say that, I don't believe that, the majority of protestors are non-violent. Sarah (HH) 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

HH is right on j_'s involvement. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought Izzy Galvez's screencaps show more involvement than that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah they show other tweets like "Has anyone else in #baltimorelootcrew read Les Misérables? revolutionary change is inevitable but it must come from the working class." - again though horrible fooler. Sarah (HH) 23:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"Indeed gentlemen we are clearly in Baltimore and plan to continue our looting & crime now and for the forseeable future" is more damning than "have you guys read les mis"—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 23:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Nor when it's from someone who's said to have created Gamergate's tokenist sect.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, tweets with "Indeed gentlemen" and "foreseeable future" - from inner city looters. Seriously? Your latest edit makes it even less true than it was before. I'm not going to revert but everyone else should read over the linked Gamerghazi thread - the only Gamergate involvement shown there is j_millerworks trying to derail the Ayyteam's troll hashtag. And not for nothing but that "token" comment was kind of racist. Sarah (HH) 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

AyyTeam and Gamergate are not mutually exclusive.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

But because we can't tie this shit to Gamergate regardless of the fact it's the same /pol/ rejects shitting up Twitter under #BaltimoreLootCrew as they did with #GamerGate I've just cut out the whole bulletpoint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable, thanks. And I couldn't agree with you more re: pol shitting up twitter hashtags. Sarah (HH) 00:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Chloe Sagal closed her twitter due to gg harassment

I think we should put this on here. Or maybe it's not noteworthy enough (which is far more likely). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Antonio stella bottom tile} 01:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, apparently the harassment was done by a group unaffiliated with GG. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{H҉̴̶͘͝a̛͜͠͏͏t̷̛͢e̷̴͘҉.͟͠ ̶͜L̨͢͝ę͘͢t͘҉̢ ̵҉͢͝͝m̵̧̛͜é̢̛͝ ͏͝͏̢͟t͏̕͞e̶̛͘͘͞l̶̛͜͠͝l̵̕͠͞͝ ͏͏y̕ǫ̸̶́͠u͜͞҉́ ̴h̴̀̕͠͠o͠҉́ẃ̶̶͘͢ ̨̢m̴̢͢u̷͠ć̕͏h̵̶̴̕͘ ҉͘I̴̢̧'̶̴v̨́͏e̶̸͟ ́͟͏̧c̵̸̨͘o̸̕m̴͜͡e̢̧̡͟ ̵̧́t̢͟ò̷ ͜h͏̷á̵͘͏͝t̷͢e̢̛̕ ̸̢̛ý̢̧͜͝ó̢́̕u̵̸͞ ̡̨͜͜͝ş̶́͝͡i̵̡n̴̵̛̛͠c̴̸͘é҉̸̛͡ ̴̀I̸҉̢̢͠ ͏͞b̵̶̧̀͠e̸̢͟͠g̢̧̀á̸͞n̴̵̡͟͏ ͘͏̕͝t҉̡̛͞ò̴ ̵̀ĺ́̕į̸̕̕v̸̨̨ȩ́͢҉̶.̛͢͝ ̵̧̢} 13:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't seem to remember who she is presently.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Chloe was the person who leaked those Wu chat logs, wasn't she? --Madman (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently she was who Allistair Pinsof outed as transgender.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And was harassed by GG afterwards. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{"Ass to ass?" "ASS. TO. ASS!"} 01:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinsof outed her years ago though. And that's mainly why he's championing Gamergate, as he saw emails from his old boss in the GameJournoPros leaks going "Don't hire this guy, he's an unethical cockbag" and he claimed he was being blacklisted from the industry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh just leave it out. It will hurt your narrative. That's all you have so you'll want to hang onto it. You don't want to bring Pinsof into the mix. ^{— Unsigned, by: 58.174.200.36 / talk / contribs} 14:06, 16 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Some BoN said

You forgot to mention AGG's attacks on a forum for depressed people, and the many people AGG has harrased and how that helped swell the ranks of GG. Was that deliberate? ^{— Unsigned, by: 94.1.73.67 / talk / contribs}

Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

He's referencing Wizardchan, apparently.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

June 8: Gamergate brigade of /r/Planetside

This is somewhat in progress, so certainly feel free to wait and watch any developments.

Basically, someone posted a thread showing off a customized skirt: http://np.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/38g6xy/brought_out_the_heat_press_vinyl_cutter_and_a_new/

Screenshot of thread with deleted comments shown: http://i.imgur.com/JLQ37qJ.png , screenshot 2: http://i.imgur.com/nbkR70o.png The poster of the thread eventually deleted her account due to the extended harassment.

The moderators of /r/Planetside tried to delete the vitriolic comments. Instead of permanently banning users, /u/Magres had a different idea of punishment: permaban with possibility of revocation after writing a 500 word essay.

http://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/390bni/user_banned_from_rplanetside_after_using_a_meme/

KotakuInAction's side: Heavily redacted modmail log, linked in above thread. Note that this is only ONE of the remarks made towards the woman in the thread. The other ones were much worse.

Full modmail log from a /r/Planetside mod: http://i.imgur.com/xmydAZp.png

Of course, in classic Gamergate fashion, everyone jumps on the bandwagon (without understanding the full context) and brigades most of /u/Magres's recent comments to anywhere between -200 and -600 because he was doing his job.

Apologies for what I am certain is atrocious formatting, I'm not used to editing wikis and wanted to make sure this got covered. Drhead (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I added it in. I hadn't looked at the talk page, though, so I didn't see you here. I'll include that second screenshot. Thanks. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 08:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the relevance tbh.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Note also that the KiA version made the Reddit front page, so was seen by every m0r00n on the bottom half of the internet - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Angry Joe

No section on AngryJoe? He made a video in december 2014 titled "Top ten gaming controversies of 2014" and included GamerGate at number 1. (for obvious reasons.) In it he describes himself as "neutral" and attacks both sides, but does do a lot of extended commentary on pro-gamergaters. This leads me to believe he is neutral, leaning twoards anti-gamergate. He also recieved a few comments from gamergaters describing him as a "Neo-Liberal" despite the fact that (as far as i know) AngryJoe has never revealed any of his policital views. Shouldn't this be a section on our timeline?'Legion^{what do you want from me} 07:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Do those knuckleheads know what "Neoliberal" even means? It's essentially the European term for Reaganomics. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I know is that Bro Team Pill DMCA'd his video out of spite.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah he DMCA'd his video, despite being a GamerGater, which as part of ethics in journalism isn't supposed to support that kind of bullshit. So ethics in games journalism my ass 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 23:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

At least his antics peeved off his buddies real bad. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 23:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I haven't seen him play with boogie2988 since he uploaded that video. 'Legion^{what do you want from me} 10:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted additions

Naqoyqatsi saw fit to add two entries to this list that were thinly veiled attacks on Brianna Wu, that have also been debunked.

• The first entry was regarding a thread on Revolution 60's Steam Greenlight forum that Gamergate likes to claim is evidence of her doing a false flag when she was making a honey pot considering every comment being made in the forum for her game was a personal attack on her rather than anything about the video game.
• The second entry was in regards to her tweets made in regards to the "Sarin gas" threat that she later deleted. Why Naqoyqatsi believes this mistake on her part which she corrected (but is constantly brought up by Gamergaters) is relevant or notable is a mystery.

In fact, I think there was plenty of discussion that Naqoyqatsi participated in (or perhaps some other Gamergate concern troll) which said that the deleted tweets weren't important at all and they were told off about it, but apparently no one likes consensus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also I erased a comment left here by that BoN proxy hopper that was an attack on me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Ryulong, for all of his bellyaching about personal attacks, has named and attacked Eron Gjoni and other living persons using nebulous and often spurious accusations against him. This is just another attempt by him to mask any criticism against Brianna Wu or Zoe Quinn on this page.

Anyway, here's what I posted:

New:

• Brianna Wu posts "Is GSX Head of Development and noted Feminist Brianna Wu a terrible person?" on the Revolution 60 Greenlight forum using her developer account. This thread is later deleted without comment.
• February 21: Brianna Wu posts "Did you know Gamergate had threatened PAX East with a Sarin gas attack? WTF is happening?!" while citing anti-Gamergate user "@elotente". She later deletes the tweets after it is revealed to her that the threats were against Gamergate members.

Changed:

• • Bob Chipman, known as MovieBob, announces he has been fired from The Escapist; Gamergate claims this is because on October 12, 2014, he posted "when you lie down with dogs, you don't get to complain about waking up with fleas" referring to harassment Gamergate supporter had experienced. However, Chipman claims that it had nothing to do with GamerGate.

--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about Eron Gjoni has ever been debunked unlike these random claims you're making against Brianna Wu which I've already debunked above and before and elsewhere. Also the clarification to that section on MovieBob is more or less irrelevant. If maybe you could provide some valid refutations of anything I've ever said about Eron Gjoni you might have a leg to stand on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean for fucks sake, can't one person make a mistake and then redact it? Of course that would make the bots Gamergaters have set up to crawl these people's twitter feeds and archive them unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You claim that Eron Gjoni is intent on driving Zoe Quinn to suicide based on nothing, which is a pretty fucking serious claim to make even if you're only repeating it. I found that in a few minutes, and I'm sure it's only scraping the surface.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

He was fully aware what he was doing when he used 4chan as his personal army.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, Gjoni has been on record saying he wants his minions to break Quinn psychologically so she'd need therapy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that Nacraycray will acknowledge that. What amuses me most about Gjoni is a) ignoring his mother with HR experience and b) then having getting his ass fired because he's working on his internet war instead of getting his job done. --Castaigne (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding that in the timeline. Do you have a source for that claim?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, here it is, an out-of-context (familiar?) screenshot which could be taken as saying "Zoe needs therapy" or "I want to make Zoe need therapy" which I can only find from idledillettante. Edit: Who "doxxed" someone who committed no crime because he was "an imminent threat". I can see why you didn't link to the source now, this possibly existent tweet which never mentions driving anyone to suicide is a horrible justification for your claim.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Gjoni wanted to ruin Quinn. That's all that's needed to be said in this particular discussion. Meanwhile, Wu wanted to fight back with your first entry and then she made a mistake with the second one; also, I'd never heard of the bullshit being pulled that someone who posted that was "anti-Gamergate" and I'm 100% sure anyone else would have not condoned those statements.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"It's okay when we do it". I'll add that this isn't the first time Ryulong has been caught in a lie. I look forward to hearing what Eron's half of this story is when he either gets the gag order overturned or it expires, because I am not content to thoughtlessly believe a person who [link redacted] has already lied on the record has to say.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

^ That. Also: "We?" Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 01:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And for fuck's sake Naqoyqatsi, Eron already told his side of the story. That's what this is. And that's what the interview with him here is. What the fuck is wrong with you guys? He had his say.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Honey Badger & Koptyo

They hired WHO with all that donation money?!?!?
OMG, this is going to be the most epic waste of donations in legal proceedings I've seen in a while. This is HILARIOUS. --Castaigne (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

David Auerbach on Wikipedia

In which the totally neutral and not at all fringe David Auerbach shows his reasonableness on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, the links don't show terribly embarrassing or unreasonable behavior. The guy is unhappy someone used WP:FRINGE to refer to him. So?--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No, he's upset that someone used the word "fringe" to refer to one of his weird arguments about Gamergate in a discussion of various arguments, and is attempting to start a fight over it, claiming that calling his brilliant ideas "fringe" is a slanderous violation of BLP rules - David Gerard (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

And he goes on to equivocate his theories being labeled fringe with them being considered comparable to Holocaust denial. Sheesh. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Not quite KiA levels of argumentation, but to be fair those would take a bit of a run up - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

JonTron's Regret

I would like an entry for June 24, 2014 to be added saying something like "JonTron tweets he regrets saying some things and does not support Gamergate" if whoever is able to edit the page finds it appropriate, I would do it but the page is protected. Since I'm a fan of his and I don't like the idea of him agreeing with Gamergate I might be reading his stance wrong though. More from Jon. SolPyre (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this fits. Maybe a quick note like I did would be okay? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks good to me.SolPyre (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Tauriq Moosa and the Witcher 3 debacle

I'm surprised this hasn't been added yet: http://www.themarysue.com/i-stand-with-tauriq/ Basically, a guy says on his blog 'Witcher 3 was awesome, but would it have killed the game programmers to include a few more people of colors?' A horde of people, many of them under the Gamergate hashtag, started harassing him to the point where he's left twitter behind. And now they're swamping the response hashtag, Istandwithtauriq.

This wasn't the first time the Witcher 3 got involved in 'critical' issues, either: http://www.zenofdesign.com/in-a-world-where-devs-get-offended-by-8-0s/ Basically, a polygon review says 'Witcher 3 was awesome, but boy does it treat women badly'. Cue some blogger ranting about it being poisonous clickbait and harmful to the gaming industry. And the review gave it an 8.0! Smaller scale, sure, and probably nothing to do with Gamergate, but the similarities are striking.

It's weird how Witcher 3 got involved in two near-identical scenarios regarding the backlash against 'Social Justice'. Apparently the notion of 'Game's great, but...' is terrifrying.^{— Unsigned, by: 68.146.50.218 / talk / contribs}

But don't you see, CLEARLY this opinion article that is stamped with the giant words OPINION must be clickbait because it dares approach racism from a non-white perspective!!!1! Meanwhile, this lovely KiA thread weeps about the lack of diversity in accepting the viewpoint of hitler fans, white supremacists, and other racists/race realists. I forget which link goes to that lovely tidbit. --Tfp (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, why the heck hasn't this been added?^{— Unsigned, by: 68.146.50.218 / talk / contribs}

It's too complex and Moosa doesn't want this to be associated with Gamergate last I saw.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Slade Villena's death threat (May 30)

Here he is making it

[link redacted] Here he is championing his gun ownership on the "neutral" TechRaptr site --Tfp (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The second post contains Zoe Quinn's real name, so if any article having her name in it is called doxxing here, you'd have to revdel it and also permaban the user, who posted it, right?--Arisboch (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Only when it's posted to point out the name.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

But yeah that Techraptor page is a no-go.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that's the same or almost the same as how Naqoyqatsi's link was justified and back then, you didn't agree.--Arisboch (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Naqoyqatsi posted in malice and the whole purpose of that page was the legal name. Tfp has not posted in malice and the legal name is not the focus. Naqoyqatsi also had a history here of being an ass while advocating Gamergate. Tfp is a Gamergate-critical type.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Zoe's name being [name redacted] was a relatively minor point in the article Naqoyqatsi posted (it was mostly how Zoe was an purportedly bad person and girlfriend, not that [another name redacted, or else people gonna ban me for directing to doxx or some shit]'s looks very trustworthy, to put it mildly) and what'd you mean with "malice"? The fact, that Naqoyqatsi was pro-GG should've been irrelevant insofar as this site usually, as far as I saw here, does not ban people for ideological disagreements (except in the case of Naqoyqatsi, that is).--Arisboch (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No, Arisboch, you don't get to go around doxing people, stop trying to weasel an excuse - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't and don't want to dox people (although it seems, that we disagree on what doxxing really is (you seem to call the redistribution of information from doxxing doxxing, too)). And do obey the ban on doxxing here and didn't write her name here, so your concern about me wanting and intending to doxx are completely unfounded.--Arisboch (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are just trying to argue about the definition of the word "dox" here, then you are completely missing the point. Wherever it fits the definition of a specific term is irrelevant. The point is that is a violation of privacy that this site shouldn't disseminate. --Akira (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's (sincerely) about ethics in website management. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And I wondered, when strawmanning will come around the corner.--Arisboch (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And it was when you kinda represented a statement about how we run the site as a misrepresnation of an argument, ironically being completely misrepresnative of what was actually said. Come on man. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about how you accused me of being a gator.--Arisboch (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

???? ? ??? ?????????? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretending not to understand, what the other is talking about? I bet,there's an article here about that trick.--Arisboch (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ooooooooor, you're crazy and I was making a point about what ethical practices actually entail when you're running a public website, while pointedly mocking some idiots along the way. Calm down. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"You're crazy"? Nice, doc, really nice. "Ethics"? It wasn't some lame-ass GG-joke? If not, what was it?--Arisboch (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, something is wrong with you. Yes, I'm totally making fun of gamergate. They're goddamn morons, and their beleifs, statements, and arguments are almost universally laughable, thus prime material for incorporating into a joke. I am calling you crazy, not as part of an argument, but as part of trying to draw you attention to the fact that the joke was not about you, you egocentric nutter. This is a problem with you, that I'd appreciate you resolving. Thus directing my point at you is a necessity.

Now, if this seems remarkably and extraordinarily condescending, it's because I feel I made a reasonable pass at hinting nicely at these kinda-obvious points already, and you need to chill. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

K'--Arisboch (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ryu, 1 of your justifications for not banning is literally "he agrees ideologically". That's a no-go. The others were the some used to defend Naqoyqatsi. What makes Tfp different? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 13:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Mens rea. Hipocrite (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And how'd yo came ot that conclusion??--Arisboch (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

How do you know his intent? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. It's not hard to divine motive from other and ancillary actions. Hipocrite (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And the relevant actions are... FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The rain is TOO FUCKING WARM. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

They have the GEASS XD--Arisboch (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Tfp is a contact on Twitter who wanted to post suggestions for content and informed me they had made this account. I have been messaging them of their error in the inclusion of the second link which had the content Arisboch pointed out. They are presently not able to access their desktop to rectify this mistake.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we have contacted Naq offwiki, then? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 23:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Guys, didn't we already go through a dramafest about Naqoyqatsi's ban? Why are we even buggering Ryulong over this? He wasn't the one that wielded the banhammer. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that I was aware of Tfp's intentions. They're also apologizing and apparently fucked up something with their password and can't rectify it as they wished.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that second link. It wasn't my intention to link to any prohibited material; unfortunately I thought TR would be above posting THAT much of Slade's opinions. I'll run my stuff through a more careful check before posting again. --Tfp (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

We are now ISIS

Let me explain.

• Since we are not for GamerGate, we are antis, aGG, anti-gamer and anti-developer. (Potential extra April 2 entry, although it's almost not worth writing in given what else happened that day.)
• There's an ISIS blocklist that lists GamerGate members. An alleged anti-ISIS site that's hosted by GoDaddy in the middle of Arizona. Seems legit. There seem to be no links from any other sites that'd support it being a blocklist checker.
• Somehow that means there's no other alternative than "antis are ISIS."
• But so are non-atheists, who are now (according to link above), SJW FUNDAMENTALISTS. Because in Gator-speak, progressive is reactionary.

--Tfp (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Kuffar.net has only existed for a month.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This is old news. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 18:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Err, I don't mean that in any sort of rude way. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 18:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes but now there's some weird "third party" website to confirm their conspiracy when someone at Daesh just copped the GGAB script and didn't get rid of Cernovich or Milo's names.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Owen-Aurini Productions is back in business!

Just collecting links here, will need contextualisation and tightening before being ready for this article or Davis Aurini.

• [2] Owen would rather deal with Dan Olson than Aurini; Aurini uses the phrase "full McIntosh" (I thought he wasn't GamerGate per se?)
• [3] Aurini didn't tell their mediator about the new fundraiser
• [4] All that money on the FundAnything? It's not pledges - Aurini has already received it
• [5] Aurini calls out Owen re: their agreement; Forney re-uploads the podcast in which Aurini compares Owen to Elliot Rodger

- David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Him saying "Full McIntosh" makes more sense than GG using it. Well, except for, y'know... Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 16:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

whoa what happen here (SPJ Airplay)

Blog post, Ghazi discussion. Is there a one-line summary of whatever this was? (other than "GG were given a chance by the last remaining neutral, and shat the bed again.") - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Top. Kek. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 23:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've got something down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The Narky take: GamerGate said they were about ethics. Everything was set up around that. GamerGate is really about making GamerGate look legitimate. They did not want to talk about ethics. They wanted all the time dedicated to them. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 01:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(Proposed edit) July 16: Conde Nast's CFO outed by Gawker, GamerGate hypocritically calls to arms against them

July 16:

Gawker unethically outs Conde Nast CFO, prompting KotakuInAction to actually take action against Gawker for a real breach in ethics for once (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3dkpzc/ethics_gawker_purposefully_outs_conde_nast_cfo_in/). However, this is after months of defending Milo Yiannopoulos's own ethical breaches (including outing trans game developers) with "he's not a game journalist," despite Gawker being as much about video games as Breitbart is.^{— Unsigned, by: Azgardzi / talk / contribs}

"Outs" in what sense? Like the "making homosexuality public"? The language there forces me to make assumptions. I don't like making assumptions. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

http://gawker.com/conde-nasts-cfo-tried-to-pay-2-500-for-a-night-with-a-1718364339^{— Unsigned, by: Azgardzi / talk / contribs}

I see. Yeah, if the guy had actually engaged in the requested corruption, it'd be huge news. But barring that, it certainly seems like "private individual hires prostitute, isn't corrupt". ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Also it really has nothing to do with Gamergate seeing as it has NOTHING to do about video games. Everyone hates Gawker. But Gamergaters just use that as a pretense for their hatred of Jezebel (still somewhat questionable but its a feminist rag) and Kotaku (actually about video games).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

While the GG double-standard is obvious and odious, we could never keep up with every hypocrisy they generate. Let's keep an eye on the situation and see if anything weirder results from it. Gawker's mistakes on their own aren't really within our remit. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This is one where both shitlords and SJWs were reminded that Gawker are actually turds ... but it really doesn't have anything to do with Gamergate - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate is trying to spin the narrative to make themselves look victorious. They see this as an opportunity for themselves to look good in the eyes of the public, despite their blatant hypocrisy. The opportunism is pretty vile.^{— Unsigned, by: Azgardzi / talk / contribs}

But the only reason it has to do with video games is because Kotaku is a subsidiary of Gawker. If Kotaku was on any other website, no one in Gamergate would give a shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

oh lordy the sarkeesienne effecte

There is SO MUCH POPCORN. Is the bit in Davis Aurini worth splitting off as a separate article? - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

AirPlay adds Derek Smart

This might be of interest:

http://spjairplay.com/update9/

Seriously? He is their idea of "neutral?" Azgardzi (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Who is he exactly?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Angry, perhaps insane gamedev who spends all of his time complaining about how successful studios stole his ideas and posits himself as "neutral" to GamerGate despite spending the last several months being chummy with the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos and Mark Kern on Twitter. Azgardzi (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Something to watch

GamerGate, not surprisingly, doesn't seem to care about how Ouya has unethically fucked over hundreds of game developers in the shittiest manner possible.

It'll be interesting to see who responds to this, and GamerGate's apathy towards it as an "ethics" movement only makes them look far worse to any sane individual. Azgardzi (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This might be something worth adding to the "Actual ethics in video game journalism" section on the main article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What the hell?

What the hell?
...This is jacked up.
And the dev's just like "lol tone it down mm k?"
...GG kept complaining about "them spineless devs that bow to the gosh-darn SJWs." No. It takes guts to realize you can be better. It takes guts to make people happy. This is what a spineless dev looks like. This takes a wicked heart, tainted by greed. Affirmation disguised as politeness. Maintaining the notion that "free speech" must be met with silence to keep speech free. There are several quotes from great people I could throw around here on the virtue of taking action. They aren't needed here. We should all know them by heart. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 08:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the dev's profile. Two degrees of RogueStar. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 08:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Problem with our economy is if you have these kinds of consumers at hand and you speak out you'll lose money. Supply and demand can't get any simpler than that. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, notice how incredibly ironic your last link is. What "Malebrok" is doing is reversing the whole situation, and a person even commented like this in order to shield itself:

“”Don't forget Gamergate is actually diverse, compared to the snow white landscape of perpetually outraged SJWs

.

It's these ignorant or otherwise hypocritical comments that piss me off so much. Republicans and Gamergate are "diverse" simply because they can get attention.

The Ipsum Effect

this is hilarious - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

For $7.5k a month, you too can have your own Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 10:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the mirror website is slightly different. Are there two websites from the split? Do they not know what redirects are? And they left their test site's URL in the code: http://www.livinghopediscipleship.com/ Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 10:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Jordan Owen says that isn't his site, the official site is http://www.thesarkeesianeffect.com with a "the". He suggests it's a bot. (This is highly implausible, but the point is he says it's not his.) The whois are both anonymised, but differently. Looks like this one was too good to be true (dammit) unless we have substantiation - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Exceeept... That site's crap and broken, too. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 23:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, at least some eyecandy--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hold up, look closely the home page... thesarkeesianeffect.com seems to be a copy of sarkeesianeffect.com, not the other way around. I'll find some clarification on this. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 00:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The Gamerghazi thread about KYM

Does anybody have an archive of it? It seems to have been deleted. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I just found an archive. It's good that KIA is so fucking paranoid that they archivebot everything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Know Your Meme, a new article went up on "Cultural Marxism." The creator and the first few commenters seem to understand that it's wingnut bullshit. Now that the GG comments thread is locked, however, I'll bet my big toe they're going to use the comments of this page as their new hangout. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Prepare to reenact a scene from Kung Pow. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 23:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. Has the GG comments been reopened? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I remember reading it was only a temporary measure due to particularly excessive off topic discussion and spamming but time will tell if they just get rid of it forever cause it isn't really a meme.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Know Your Meme is also an "events" site. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 22:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Site owner Don also likes to frontpage "controversial" things, usually stuff that discredits social justice advocacy. I think he's secretly trying to force affirmative action for conservatives. I caught one user pining for the good old days when the site used to have a liberal bias (which changed thanks to Gamergate and the influx of /pol/acks). ConfusedLiberal (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh! That reminds me. Recently on a front page they hosted a Sky News video of some alleged feminist arguing that office air conditioning is sexist, and the KYM crowd is using it as further confirmation bias that feminists are a sinister far-left conspiracy. Could we perhaps take a look at that and determine whether this person is just some lone moonbat or a troll?ConfusedLiberal (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Office air conditioning? Has he never been to a Waffle House? WalkerWalkerWalker 04:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this what you're referring to, ConLib? Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 08:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Though upon review I don't know how serious it is now. I know Liberal Genius was a troll. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

So, that CM article got front page

Hilarity ensues. That image section is going to get weeeeeird. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reaxxion

I just noted its closing. Should note its opening too - when was that? - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Something is said on the main GG page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In just a little less than an hour the Fine Young Capitalists' game Afterlife Empire will release

http://store.steampowered.com//app/367710

Was expecting more than this. Dandtiks69 (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ten minutes. Dandtiks69 (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Do... do we care? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sort of. Five minutes. Dandtiks69 (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Open, NOW. I'll go check out the Steam page. Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Steam game Afterlife Empire delayed for a week

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Far more respectable games have suffered far more serious delays; see, for example, everything Paradox Interactive does. WalkerWalkerWalker 19:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There have been unofficial reviews on KIA that seem to suggest it's shit, buggy, and derivative.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. TFYC probably didn't know what they were doing considering they take amateur game programers' work for profit, just like Zoe Quinn said. Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm not saying not to dismiss/dislike it, but I am saying that a (comparably brief) delay is not a great reason to. If it's shit, well, shit is shit. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A fine gentleman a little bit ago asked this, and I think it's good to raise it again: "Do... do we care?"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If we're on a talk page for that subject how are we not to care? Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

We're on the talk page for a timeline of gamergate, not a liveblog for the countdown and then reaction to the (not) release of some video game.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 21:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) We are on a talk page for an article dealing with Gamergate. I believe, Dandtiks, that the question is one of whether or not this is too minute a detail to bother with. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol, Then explain the pictures of pennies on the main talk page of Gamergate and the picture of an alligator fish. Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

lol, my point is that we can occasionally pull jokes in the talk pages. Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

You and me have very different and wildly disagreeing opinions on what a joke is if this is a joke.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not all a joke. Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Because of the internal corruption in GG, we weren't even notified a few days ahead of time, this was in an hour that it got delayed. How very inconvenient. Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Paravant, PacWalker, it's my understanding that we are discussing this video game because it was funded through Gamergate's spite-fueled charity donations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't explain why we have two sections dedicated to a liveblogged countdown and then luaghter on the talkpage. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 11:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that's something for Dandtiks69 to answer. I just know why this particular game is relevant in the discussion of Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Countdown was just a sort of a joke, the laughter was me ridiculizing the predictably shitty game. End of story. Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if no one cared, why did they bother answering them? Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Now the question is

Any idea who could have sent the bomb threats? My money's on random trolls who want to stir the pot. Blitz (Complaints Box) 20:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What does "despite Koretzky's initial claims that such threats would be dealt with" mean? Ghazi says they're evacuating nearby houses too, so the authorities are taking it seriously. Did Koretzky claim he'd ignore the threats, or how did he say he'd deal with them? - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No clue, ask the guy who wrote that. I don't edit things relating to Gamergate anymore. Blitz (Complaints Box) 20:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

On the Airplay blog, Koretzky said that security would sweep the venue so they knew bomb threats would be bogus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

He also said a member of the security detail would be a former international boxing champion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this was the police evacuating the place, not Koretzky's call - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm guessing their bomb squad was made aware and was not impressed/persuaded by the boxing champion's assessment, but that's just my uneducated guess. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I still want to know who the hell he hired. Also apparently the threat included a time that the explosive would go off which is why the police acted as they did. I read that this was a tactic used by the IRA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few GGers seem to be happy about the bomb threat. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 00:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

To update with later

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/screenwriter/2015/08/16/gamergate-event-disrupted-by-bomb-scare/

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That yelling at clouds quote though. 👌 WalkerWalkerWalker 12:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You can incorporate this if you want. I just wanted to save it for when I got back on my desktop if no one else was paying attention here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

last coupla days' adds

Those epic paragraphs ... can they be cut to a digestible-at-a-glance length? (I'd have a go myself but am unfamiliar with the events in question and didn't want to hack without spending thought on them.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of them are summaries of 30 minute long videos or massive multi page essays.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Brianna Wu on Samus Aran

So Know Your Meme is claiming that Brianna Wu and some other woman writing for The Mary Sue posted an article claiming that Samus Aran is a transwoman, and that Wu later tried to edit Samus' Wikipedia page to say she was trans. Because KYM is pro-GG, I am not sure I can trust all that at face value. Can this be confirmed or disproven? Blitz (Complaints Box) 17:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Boosh! Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've always wondered when any feminist investigator other that Anita Sarkeesian would bring Samus Aran up. Still, is that page on Wikipedia bound to get a 500/30 rule too? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Dunno. I'm far past that anyway so I tend to stay out of such matters. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been in Wikipedia to edit? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. It looks like the page on KYM was either deleted or pushed off the trending page. If it shows up on the front page, we'll know for sure, since Don loves to frontpage anything "controversial." (I think he's secretly conservative and/or anti-feminist, and will frontpage anything that discredits social justice). Blitz (Complaints Box) 19:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Also on the front page: Calling Duke Nukem a "first-person shooter series." Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 16:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't Gamergate related.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

eeeeeeh, it's just barely enough to deserve its own comment thread here. Samus Aran is one of the more conflicting people to do an analysis on. Also, this is Brianna Wu we're talking about after all. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Anything she does will result in a Gamergate reaction. At this point, and particularly a year on from its beginnings, we should limit the timeline to things Gamergate does on their own. I'm already hesitant to list the harassment srhbutts has been receiving from them for the past few days, which is more or less a prominent thing they're doing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Blitz (Complaints Box) 16:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, also there's nothing exceptional about this reaction. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

Why hasn't this turd earned his own page yet? It certainly isn't for lack of odiousness or lack of available content, much of it independent of GG (misogyny and MRA trash, thinly veiled racism and homophobia (strange considering he's gay)).Petey Plane (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

it is a much requested article. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget how he failed to pay his employees and the resulting legal action forced him to shutter his startup.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The corpse of which is now owned by the Daily Dot, who use it to run - ha! - anti-Gamergate articles - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate participation was his worst business practice he could have made. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think his latest haircut comes close. :)--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I really hoped that self-hating gay men were a thing of the past in Britain. This turd is like a throwback to the 1930s. I guess he can hate himself as much he wants and so be it. But forcing that destructive shit onto others is so unacceptable. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'd say writing his page would make its author the foremost authority on Milo Yiannopoulos, and that's not a distinction i'd wish on anyone, hence the current status.Petey Plane (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos exists and would be a good framework - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Google Helldump

Fo' rizzles? Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 08:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

List_of_Gamergate_claims#.22Google_Helldump.22 - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we may need to update the claim as last I saw they were using chat logs of unknown origin to lay the blame on her for something.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Fansub supremacy?

They're missing out on Berserk's English dub. Sucks to be them. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 21:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"My love for you is like a truck berserker"—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I like the menstruation outtake. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 12:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Star Citizen

I'm trying to find out the wtf here, but as far as I can tell both the company and its opponents are not just terrible people, but incompetent - the company appears to have burnt $90m in a crackpipe, and the Escapist continues to be the Breitbart of gaming. Also I've seen both the fans and antifans act like the sort of message board denizens that make other people contact the mods if they ever leave their containment threads. Just because Derek Smart has the hatchet out doesn't mean he's actually wrong on this one, though OTOH that didn't stop the Escapist fucking up their one chance at actual ethical gaming journalism - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It does seem that Chris Roberts is a lesser Derek Smart but Smart is still using Gamergate as his pawns, knights, rooks, and bishops in his campaign against them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I think we should make the Gamergate links clearer here, because it will literally be the one thing they've ever been right about. (And they still fucked it up.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I did cut everything back to be mostly about how Gamergate is involved rather than peppering the whole timeline with Derek Smart Derek Smart Derek Smart—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@ArchivistBecks trying to get Eugene Volokh fired

@ArchivistBecks (formerly known as @8bitbecca) launches a short-lived and quixotic quest to get Eugene Volokh in trouble with UCLA administration for submitting his amicus brief in support of Eron Gjoni

It happened. Why does it not belong on the timeline? It also appeared to produce further drama, including allegations of harassment, including claims of @Popehat (unclear if that was Ken or Patrick or Clark) harassing Becks. And who decides what is "noteworthy"? Blacke (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Because Ryulong owns this article and all related articles. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No because it's not important and only seems to be drawing more ire upon this one person who is only mentioned once on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why is it not important? And if a person tries to get a law professor sacked for writing an amicus brief, they deserve a certain degree of ire. (Not an unlimited degree; public ridicule is entirely called for, death threats etc are not.) Blacke (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Because you framed it in a way to attack them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

According to Ghazi, Becks prefers the pronoun "they". And surely a person who does this deserves to be attacked for doing it. Blacke (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I was not aware of that. And no one deserves to be attacked for anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Do GGers deserve to be attacked? Don't you attack GGers? Isn't the whole point of this site to attack fundies and wingnuts and other attack-worthy individuals? (Being clear that "attack" in this context means "call out for their stupidity", not "threaten to kill" or so on.) Blacke (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Punching up vs. punching down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You obviously believe in that shite but does this site? This site has been happy in the past to attack the wackos of both sides of politics, wingnut and moonbat alike. By your principles, the later must be disallowed as "punching down". This is RationalWiki, not RyulongWiki. Blacke (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The site does not believe in anything. There is no mass collective here; this is an anarchic mobocracy. And no, Ryulong does not "attack GGers"; he records them factually and with exacting detail. I appreciate it personally, as any attempt elsewhere is going to get KIA brigading with GAMERGATE IS TOTES MCGOTES AWESOME RANDI HARPER IS A FAT PEDO WHALE WHO RAPES HER KIDS. --Castaigne (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference in how you're singling out this person who's been attacked by Gamergate repeatedly for one thing they did that had nothing come out of it and documenting the crazy shit Gamergate as a group does in its name to people like Becks. The only vague comparison you could make is how I've added stuff regarding Derek Smart (Derek Smart! DEREK SMART!) to this page that doesn't necessarily have much to do with Gamergate other than how he's trying to use it to his advantage. Maybe some of that needs to be cut out, seeing as they're not being attracted to his cause celebre, but your shit doesn't fit in either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who most of those names are, but not everything Gjoni-related is automatically a noteworthy Gamergate event. So how exactly does this stuff tie into the Gamergate movement? Has there been an overall response from Gators? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:43, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

@ArchivistBecks is a video game archivist who was dogpiled by Gamergate after revealing that after consulting with their professors, their project would not have been allowed after the climate of Gamergate because many in academia decided that video games weren't a worthy artform to archive anymore. They shut their Twitter down biefly after being targetted for saying "Gamergate fucked up academics' view of video games". I guess sometime later, they made a statement regarding Eugene Volokh, who wrote an amicus brief in Gjoni's legal proceedings against Quinn. One of the Popehat guys responded to them while they were under a Twitter dogpile from KIA, and Randi Harper attempted to defend the Popehat guys because they weren't responsible. It's all a clusterfuck that Blacke here is trying to use as evidence of this one person's wrongdoing like every other fucking Gamergater out there. The fact that the link he's using is an archive of a Google Cache is what's telling of the intent here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The timeline already mentions the amicus brief, and some legal blog posts about it (from Volokh and from another lawyer), so if those morsels of fact are Gamergate-noteworthy why is not this one? It also resulted in substantial discussion on KiA, plus the Ghazi discussion I linked to above. Blacke (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The thread on GamerGhazi is mostly deleted (which is why you're relying on an archived version to make your argument). Gamergate went after this person because she criticized their newest hero. If anything is going to be added to the page regarding this stage of event it should be that instead of attacking Rebecca.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do you persist in mispronouning them? Blacke (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep your concern trolling mouth shut and stay on topic because I'm not doing this intentionally.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If a gator was mispronouning (intentionally or not), I'm sure you'd be on to it. Blacke (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to try to use "SJW" terms to try to turn this against me, the term is "misgendering". And gators always misgender intentionally. I'm simply not paying attention because I don't know this one person very well and I am correcting myself, when Gamergaters will repeatedly refer to srhbutts and others as "he" and use their former names to attack them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how a single trolling attempt against Volokh is really notable. It's rather like making a note of every single post and livestream The Ralph Retort does every day. Just not important. --Castaigne (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Civil war

Ever heard of GGRevolt? That's a segment of GG that's now turned on Sargon of Akkad. What's going on there? Serocco 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at KIA, it resembles a forced meme. KIA megathread from four months ago. No evidence anyone should care - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason I brought it up was because of this manifesto that led to cyberbullying of the author, some dude named Paolo, who quit the internet and sought professional help as a result. Paolo wasn't the first after that, I hear, and even folks like Sargon are being targeted. Serocco 00:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Squabbling within Gamergate that's gone unnoticed by anyone other than a small subset of Gamergaters is not worth mentioning, particularly if Ralphie boy is the only seed for the info.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Baphomet Mod

Keep an ear out. Vinc might have been arrested and/or killed in an FBI raid. Confirmation of this will be interesting. --LANCBUser (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Further info. --LANCBUser (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The concept is plausible. The additional information brings doubt. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 19:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly why it's on the talk page for watching. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And here's Benjamin Beddix confirming it. --Supreme Dalek (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

But is it death or  4 8chan party van?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Anita's Twitch feed hijacked by Milo's trolls, accusations made about moderator of twitch feed

So Anita did a live Twitch feed where I believe she was playing Assassin's Creed: Syndicate. Her Twitch feed got hijacked when Milo directed his army of trolls to the feed. During when those trolls were getting blocked https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3qo3vu/anita_sarkeesian_bans_twitch_people_in_chat/ , it has been revealed that apparently the person chosen to moderate Anita's Twitch feed, Valis77, apparently is on the sex offenders registry: http://theralphretort.com/repulsive-anita-sarkeesian-has-a-convicted-pedophile-as-her-twitch-moderator-1029015/ . Now of course, it doesn't really help that the report cites Encyclopaedia Dramatica as a source, not a mention the hypocrisy of Gamergate condemning supposed paedophiles when they have yet to disassociate themselves from 8chan. It also doesn't state what the crime committed actually was, not to mention that it was in 2001 (when Valnis77 would have been 23) and the "minor" in question is stated as "over 14 under 16" in the charge against him meaning we have no idea of what the relationship between the two were. Still, can anyone else help look into this? Jon91919 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that sounds like a temptest in a teapot that's making a very iffy guilt by association accusation that doesn't really require any serious scrutiny, but... I think that pretty much describes 100% of gamergate now that I think about it. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and the other problems as well also include the lack of details. I mean, from what I've seen, the guy's "conviction" was in 2001, so it's safe to assume he may have served time. But I mean, obviously the guy is out of prison now, and Gamergate hasn't shown anything really "damning" as such here, since there's been nothing to present to show that the guy is in any way a "re-offender", nor have any of their investigations shown if the guy's on some kind of rehabilitation program if he truly had the kind of problem Gamergate claims he does. Plus, they're outraged the guy was a mod on a Twitch chatlog, but what "power" does that really entail? To me, and I could be admittedly woefully mistaken, it basically consists of observing a bunch of screen-names talking and then banning anyone that acts like a fuckwit in the chatlogs. Oh my god, the "power"! (/sarcasm). Jon91919 (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What's Twitch? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:09, 29 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Twitch.tv is a website where people can broadcast themselves playing video games live.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The outrage over potential past pedophilia coming from 4chan/8chan (both which Milo actively endorses) is so absurd that it almost makes me want to start a twitter just to troll these morons, but i'm not stupid enough to think that would actually be effective. A screen cap of the 1st page of /b/ from either site posted to Milo's twitter, along with quotes from Milo's praises of the sites every hour, on the hour would be fun though.--Petey Plane (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The most infuriating thing is the pass that the "gaming community" gives to someone so transparently ignorant about actual video game culture (not to mention his previous contempt for the gaming community). Milo says his favorite game is Postal. Leaving aside the middle school level humor of those games, they are deeply mediocre game-play and design wise (at best, seriously flawed and buggy is more typical for the series). Anyone who endorses those as their favorite games clearly knows little to nothing about video games. That's like having Meet the Spartans as your favorite movie of all time. But he's a woman hating MRA with a platform, which seems to be all that is necessary to be a Gamergate leader.--Petey Plane (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Tim Acheson

This came up. (That's my post with links. Yes, I'm a Tumblrina. w00t!) Acheson has no prior with GG, but this post - about his UNBRIDLED OUTRAGE at women not wanting to talk to him - he tagged "gamergate". Dunno if worth a mention yet - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

gitgud.io

GG has its own alias at gitlab, called gitgud! If you have too much time on your hands, here's the news from Parallel Earth. - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't get it, why does GG need it's own git server?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Because their stuff was kicked off github for TOS violations - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

ToS violations? What did they do this time?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The same thing they do every time. Dox and harass people. Typhoon (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That read like a weird version of Pinky and the Brain. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 07:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I loved to watch Pinky and the Brain, when I was young.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 11:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 Issue

I believe this is worth adding to the timeline. /r/KotakuInAction is attempting to start an email campaign to get Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 localized outside of Asia. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/dead-or-alive-xtreme-3-localization-controversy ^{— Unsigned, by: Blocky / talk / contribs}

It's a non-issue though.—Ryulong (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's an event (down to the false flag "false flag" level), but I'm not entirely sure it's a GG event - David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The rabble at KiA and Breitbart appear to be trying to place the blame for the lack of US localization on the usual "SJW" strawmen. More likely is that the DoA Xtreme series is very niche and little more than dating games with a healthy dose of cheesecake. While titles like that are very popular in Asian markets, they aren't so much in the English speaking sphere. The costs of localizing (and marketing) a niche spin-off of a series (the DoA fighting games) that hasn't been popular in the US for about a decade was probably the primary motivating factor. Not to mention, the game would also be competing against universally available and free porn. Seems more like GGers wanting to make something unrelated all about them, and not really worth adding. Petey Plane (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The business decisions of Team Ninja are clearly about ethics in games journalism. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Koei Tecmo Europe released a statement on Twitter basically saying "our community manager is an idiot".—Ryulong (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Disputed Facts - Vordrak

Hi,

I am Sam Smith / Vordrak referred to at 5 points in this article. Far from being a vicious GamerGate goon as some have described me, I have in fact been praised in various places for my legal skills representing vulnerable women in court. Parliament, for example. I happen to think GamerGate has some legitimate concerns. A number of the statements about me in this article are inaccurate, and in breach of RW policy.

1. Doxxing I am open that I am Vordrak / Sam Smith / Matthew Hopkins. However I tend not to put my middle name C_________d online to avoid identity theft. This has been obtained by non-casual record search and I ask you to remove and (oversight) it.

2. Allegations of Criminal Activity The entry referring to me under, 'August 29', accuses me of harassment of developers of Free Reddit Check, a discontinued online tool. Harassment is a criminal offence in the United Kingdom where I live and the United States. The only source for the allegation that I am responsible for the 'harassment' is a Ghazi post. I would suggest that bare assertions by parties to disputes are not sufficient to source allegations of criminal conduct. Also, the Ghazi post concerned has been deleted leaving no sources at all linking me to said crime. This allegation appears to be malicious or at least reckless.

3. Other Inaccuracies These are entries that are less serious but still inaccurate by virtue of overstating the case or using sources that do not support the allegation.

March 8 - alleged that I proposed crowd funding a spam / reporting bot, but then 'backtracked' and said it was a parody. In fact, it was always a parody. The inaugural article linked as a 'source' has a tongue sticking out ASCII emote in the title. The linked Twitter account has always included the word, 'parody' in the description. This allegation is not, in fact, true.

July 18 - alleges that I started a subreddit for the sole purpose of disrupting Wikipedia in Gamergate's favour. The only 'source' for this allegation is a link to the subreddit concerned, which makes clear of course that it is nothing of the kind. The entry makes an allegation that I started threads asking for ways to link Wikipedia to paedophilia. This allegation is unsourced. At one point I did write an article carefully exposing some *admitted* paedophiles on Wikipedia and I asked for further evidence. Not the same thing. Also claims that I blamed Wikipedia administrator Gamaliel for banning me when it was Floquenbeam (that is, unjustly blaming Gamaliel). This allegation is unsourced. In fact, Gamaliel proposed the ban and indicated he would carry it out Floquenbeam merely implemented it.

Finally, this entry refers to a comment I made in 2008 comparing the profound harm caused by sexual abuse to that caused by substance abuse. Clearly I did make the statement but its description here should probably be made more factual.

October 12 - refers to a mailshot I sent out. Refers to a bare assertion by Randi Harper that I tried to get her fired from OAPI. Her allegation is unsourced and denied. Like Breitbart, I have been unable to find any evidence that OAPI even exists, beyond being a personal blog of Harper's. The mail was flagged as spam by 2 of 500+ recipients.

October 13 - use of middle name only. Users of KiA did criticise the mailshot.^{— Unsigned, by: Vordrak / talk / contribs}

It's funny to hear you complain about us using your middle name while you posted this to wikipedia:

“”Under the latter circumstances [me as an outsider] I am free to say what I like and to reveal the real world names of people I would not otherwise have named.

In fact you seem to love doing this, this is what people said about you in the ArbCom

“”Vordrak is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has a one-way interaction ban with Mark Bernstein because of his obsession with him. He continually engages in off-wiki collaboration in an attempt to dig out small particles of dirt all in a transparent attempt to remove someone who GamerGate proponents see as the biggest obstacle towards getting "their" version of their story on the page and in Wikipedia's voice. Vordrak has a history of yellow dog journalism and very recently went so far as to include Mark Bernstein's name fairly prominently in a "news article" about pedophelia that he wrote, for no apparent reason other than to hammer the seo around Mark's name into the realm of kiddie fiddlers.

“”So far, Vordak's contribution to Wikipedia has been to leave a series of messages which demand that editors and administrators take his preferred actions or face negative media scrutiny, promote his blog via User talk:Jimbo Wales and Reddit (which has long been a brigading station for Wikipedia edits in this topic area), prominently mention the subject of his complaint in a long blog post about pedophilia while claiming he had absolutely no intention of linking him to such a thing, and running a contest "for the best satirical animated GIF connecting Wikipedia and Paedophilia." At the conclusion of this matter I will be blocking Vordak as WP:NOTHERE unless he is blocked by the Committee or I am advised by a member of the Committee not to take this action.

Guess what Collingwood, you're not going to get your way in here either. Typhoon (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Blacktric, Jubbal and Vice

There's a second article of the Jubbal viral incident here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/25/when_trolls_attack__gamergate_is_scapegoated_128844.html

It goes into depth about Blacktric (Who made the caption that got on all the news) and has comments from TW (Who's reliability can be debated since it's after the thing happened).

Notably, TW mentions GG is overeager to blame boogeymen like the so called #AYYTeam and the author of the piece cherry picks a tweet from Azure that said the following:

#GamerGate freaking out so hard about the buzzfeed article, like "woah you mean our actions have consequences???".

And yes, fucks, we know the official creator wasn't actually one of you. Fun fact: That's irrelevant. Fucktric created it because he's a dipshit who thinks he's funny. He's not the one sharing it en masse and actively organizing harassment. He's not the one writing pretend apology articles like the one on Breitbart right now going after Veerender anyway. He's not the one who got this comment to be the top rated one on the thread about this.

That was you, #gamergate.

Basically, it isn't hard to find things to add from even Pro-GG sources. In fact, if you guys are wanting to dissuade people in GG and not score ideological points, I'd suggest you do this.Keter (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Cathy Young's article is full of Gamergate apologetics and is trying to foist the blame away from Gamergate onto #AYYTeam when there is no useful distinction between the two to even matter. Azure's statement is really what matters so there's nothing really to add here.—Ryulong (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Quoting the Part Ryu refused to read: "However, he denied that either he or Blacktric were part of “AyyTeam” and insisted that he didn’t even know who was in that group, saying that “it’s GG's favorite boogeyman, same as GG is the internet’s boogeyman for bad things that happen.”"Keter (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Vordrak email

I got the following email:

Hi CarpetSmoker,

I noticed that you removed my middle name from the 'Timeline of 
GamerGate' article on RationalWiki, which is appreciated. There are 
several allegations remaining on that page, but you will appreciate it 
is not worth fighting every comment made on the internet. However there 
is one point remaining I would like you to look at. Under *'August 29'* 
on the Timeline.

/"Free Reddit Check is taken down due to personal threats directed at 
its creators. One of them posts on /r/GamerGhazi 
<https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi>, revealing that Sam Smith (a.k.a 
"Matthew Hopkins", a.k.a. "Vordrak") was behind the harassment that led 
to the app's shuttering."/

This allegation is supported only by a link to GamerGhazi that has been 
deleted by the person who made it, although you now have it in archive. 
The reason they deleted it was that, although I did indeed threaten them 
with a lawsuit, I did not 'harass' them.

You can certainly say that I threatened a lawsuit, but the allegation of 
'harassment' is both untrue and an allegation of a *crime*. If you think 
about it, the page history shows you guys changed the link from a direct 
one to an archive, which shows you /know it has been deleted/.

This text would be compliant -

/"Free Reddit Check is taken down due to personal threats directed at 
its creators. One of them posts on ///r/GamerGhazi 
<https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi>//, revealing that Sam Smith (a.k.a 
"Matthew Hopkins", a.k.a. "Vordrak") threatened them with a lawsuit 
leading to the app's shuttering."/

Because RationalWiki's editors have repeated it even /knowing it has 
been deleted/, I would be on strong grounds there if I took action 
against RationalWiki. On the other hand, if you correct that one thing, 
the other points currently there fall much closer to the 'opinion' category.

Kind regards,

Sam Smith

I changed "harassment" to "continued legal threats", as it's more accurate (what does "harassment" exactly mean?) Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Threatening legal action is still harassment.—Ryulong (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps. But "continued legal threats" is more accurate, as such. Harassment can also mean calling the developer(s) of this app every night at 4am, for example. Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably means he will leave you alone Carpetsmoker and you will not find yourself in an article with paedophilia in the title...... his modus operandi seems to be to personally attack those who do not do what he demands.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

*shrug* He can do whatever, I can take it. To be clear: I didn't change anything here to please him in any way, or out of fear of repercussions; I changed it for different reasons. I just posted the email here to make it clear that I acted on off-wiki initiative. Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Too much BLP-hazardous rubbish

on GG pages from driveby users. I've set protection to sysop and emailed the other mods about it. Please desist - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What's a BLP? EDIT: Nevermind, figured it out. Blitz (Complaints Box) 03:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Black Lives... Patter? >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:57, 19 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

I had trouble finding any unverifiable BLP claims outside of a few spurrious claims against Eron. Unless that's what you were referring to, though the articles would be a better target. Claims such as "Margaret Pless publishes a teardown of Eron Gjoni's state of mind, exposing his abusive behavior" (sourced exclusively by a blog) seem more "hazardous" than posting archive links but some animals are more equal than others I guess? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Banned main (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The claims aren't BLP. Stop protecting a man who's so abusive he formed a 4chan raid to get back at his ex.—Ryulong (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Who are you getting these claims from? I don't think you've even contacted Eron for his side of the story.--Banned main (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No but other people have.—Ryulong (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"My personal info [...] has been widely distributed, alongside nude photos of me[...]" Wasn't she the one who sold those nude photos to a porno site or several? That's some hard-hitting investigative journalism right there. I also notice Zoe Quinn or whatever imaginary name she has for herself is always quoted directly while Eron is always paraphrased and psychoanalyzed. Also, the gag order the writer seems eager to use to validate some wrongdoing on Eron's part was thrown out several months ago if memory serves.

Thanks, I had a laugh. Pic related.--Banned main (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop victim blaming. You all know no one would have found those had Eron not given Gamergate hints as to where they were. Also, he's still a sociopath who thought spurring a 4chan raid is the perfect way to get over a bad breakup so maybe that's why he's being psychoanalyzed.—Ryulong (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is why not only has the gag order been vacated by a judge, but "(Zoe Quinn) opted to try to moot the issue on appeal by requesting the original order be vacated before the Supreme Judicial court or Appellate Court could weigh in on the case" (and hell yes, this is all backed up by public records). Yeah, that's what innocent people do, they try to game the system.--Banned main (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that's because Eron was repeatedly violating the restraining order in order to force Zoe Quinn to repeatedly face him in court over these things and she tried to vacate the order so she could move on but yet he fought it tooth and nail because he was setting some bullshit free speech absolutist precedent. Mind you, she's not convicted of anything, criminal or otherwise. You know, because she's not the person trying to stoke the flames of an online army into tracking down their ex's address so the online army can stalk her and threaten her to where she has to flee her home again. But no. According to your version of history, Zoe Quinn abused Eron Gjoni and used SJW powers to get the courts to rule in her favor and this is her trying to avoid getting caught for tricking a judge into breaking Eron's first amendment rights to tell assholes on the Internet all about how his ex-girlfriend who he thought was the most perfect person in the world broke his heart and call her a slut.—Ryulong (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Too much BLP-hazardous rubbish

on GG pages from driveby users. I've set protection to sysop and emailed the other mods about it. Please desist - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Needs refreshing

The /r/GamerGhazi timeline, which this was originally forked from with permission. If someone can be bothered to go through and update this from that, that'd be awesome - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who started this article on RationalWiki, guess I'll be also the one who finishes it. Note that I was originally merely copying stuff from the other timeline, my original intent was to give it a more stable home here (subreddits can easily disappear). Because Gamergate has lost its steam long ago, I don't expect my updates to be frequent. Typhoon (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

WIGO:GG will be WIGO:CP before we know it! - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This KiA thread is awkwardly stupid

They still don't understand how Twitter's search works. All of this "collusionz so blatant!!11!!1one" nonsense reminds me of all the times people have said that stuff I didn't do was "obviously" done by me, and thus, I cringe in remembrance of how awkward that is. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 01:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Whenever I click a link like the one you posted above and actually read a few lines, I immediately go to talk to real people, in real life.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dang, wish I had that luxury D= Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 01:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It is cleansing, without fail. :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: January 9

Just a bit of a correction. That Milo tweet is from a sockpuppet that took on his name and picture. A shitload of them have popped up since he lost his verification (and this sort of thing is exactly why celebs and other big names get verified). As big a piece of shit as he is, he's smart enough not to personally threaten people (from what I can tell, at least); he lets his fans do all the dirty work while denying everything. Blitz (Complaints Box) 06:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Good Lord, that was terrible. Removed, thank you - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is horrible

Seriously, I have no idea how we can expect anybody to even read the thing, let alone verify its sources. The fact that this edit got reverted shows that nobody cares about keeping it readable, and with the thing getting longer by the month it can only get worse. This Gamergate business is a clusterfuck that RW should never have let itself get sucked into. Balaam (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"with the thing getting longer by the month it can only get worse." <-Not true. Gamergate has been slowing down for some time now. Typhoon (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's specifically a timeline, organised only by date, rather than a story per se. A fair bit of the writing could do with polishing. What citations are missing or don't check out? - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon: do you have an estimated point in time at which the article will stop growing?

David: it's not missing citations I'm bothered about so much. Seriously, just pick a random piece of the article, read it, and ask yourself "will anyone give a fuck about this in three years?"

And I'm just not seeing the logic behind it's construction. Why was this stuff reverted? How is it any less valid than the crap that's already on the timeline? Balaam (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you guys just reverting stuff at random now? Balaam (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A comment by someone not notable and not part of GG, of only tangential relation to GG, inserted by one of our resident GG apologists? Why wouldn't it get the chop? Sure, it could be slimmed down quite a bit in other areas, but to call it 'at random' is disingenuous. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It mentions Gamerghazi, Sarah Nyberg and that Milo guy. I'm not an expert but I thought all three were significant. I mean, they're mentioned 12, 17 and 47 times respectively in the article as it is. But an incident involving all three is irrelevant, while these momentous events are okay to include:

June 19: Voat announces their German hosting service, Host Europe, has shut down their servers due to "political incorrect" content, and you should send donations. Their website goes down for several days.

Gamergaters proudly claim responsibility for having increased Breitbart's web traffic by 75% in the past year. But they're totally not right wing, guys.

January 1: Wikipedia user The Devil's Advocate is the latest of many editors banned for alleged offsite Gamergate-related harassment. Breitbart considers this newsworthy for some reason.

So again, what's the logic? How do you decide what is or isn't relevant? I say you guys should put this article on hold, draw up some strict notability criteria, and burn everything that doesn't meet it before you resume updates. (That'd be my no.2 plan of action. No.1 is nuking everything about Gamergate on this wiki.) Balaam (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that "I don't like articles on this topic so I'll fuck up this one" is not a useful or productive mode of interaction. If you literally don't understand the article, you're probably the last person to touch it - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That Anne Wheaton thread on KiA

"Why don't SJWs understand memes?" KiA asks about a retired middle-aged lady that spends her time helping rescue animals instead of browsing the internet. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 08:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

...And wow, that slur referring to people with Down's syndrome has a lot of up-votes. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 08:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

So, uh

Somebody's not happy that their edits mixing present- and past-tense got reverted. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 23:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The court case

Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend says their legal battle is not over Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Stalkers gonna stalk. One day, he's likely to cross a line unequivocally or turn his stalking on someone else with a better chance of making charges stick. His own words suggest he still sees himself as perfectly justified in everything he's done; he's learned nothing. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. And when the day comes, he'll find that everyone who he thought was in his court has evaporated in the ether, leaving him totally alone. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't Quinn had some kinda gag order made against Gjoni? How did she do that and what was in that gag order? --Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The timeline will assist you in answering that question. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Was the gag order renewed? It said on the 10th of October 2014, that the gag/restraining order (sounds kinda weird, doesn't a restraining order normally just restrain a person from meeting the other person in the flesh?) was for a year. Was it renewed or did it expire? The Article is kinda unclear about that--Kugelschreiber (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's your answer. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So she apparently want's to "vacate" the restraining order.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, she already has. Gjoni has refused to drop his counter action because it's his latest way of continuing to hound her something something free speech. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Just like in the case of some Scientology lawsuits, copyright lawsuits and others: Law is not always justice.--Kugelschreiber (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Torrential Downpour

The entry about this campaign is misleading as it uses a reddit post saying the special edition of the game sold out, but simply says the game sold out creating the false impression that all versions of the games are just flying off the shelves rather than just the limited release special edition. Also, the claims about the hashtag are off as the archive is for "top tweets" rather than showing all tweets with the tag. When I looked at all the tweets I couldn't see past February 19th because I reached the tweet limit, so there is definitely a lot of usage. Given this, including claims about the thunderclap would also be misleading. For the moment, I don't think there can be much said about the campaign's success or lack thereof so I have removed all those details.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to edit. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I re-added parts of the deleted section with a more authoritative source on the sales numbers and the success of the game. Squirrelrampage (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Kia

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/46vj1s/drama_conspiring_against_the_un_swatting/

A post by our very own Parogar, antifeminist extraordinare. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 05:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, he is still complaining about this place.--Owlman (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Context missing

You talk about Reddit's push to ban hatesubs, but don't note the creation of the "valuable conversation" meme. I think it's relevant.Keter (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The what? I think I'm missing more than context here. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

/r/KiA had several floods from rightwing subs that were banned last year. I think everything relating to Ellen Pao's reign and the ensuing crackdowns are important to an extent.^{— Unsigned, by: Keter / talk / contribs}

That's all on the reddit page already. Covering it here is just redundant. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 05:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"receiving less money than he earned overall"

receiving less money than he earned overall

receiving less money than he earned overall

receiving less money than he earned overall

receiving less money than he earned overall

That does not make any sense. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Eh, it actually makes some sense. I'm sure a monk somewhere could have said "earn a pound, receive a penny" or something. That sounds like a profound quote. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 15:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The missing fragment there would be 'should have'. 'Receiving money' and 'earned' are synonyms; being able to pick apart the intended meaning with effort does not excuse poor writing. Besides, why do we need to repeat his failed excuses? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

[EC} It makes sense in a discounted fee sense but it doesn't mean one gets to secretly overcharge other customers without their knowledge to make up that difference. Badly worded though. I believe that's more fraud than embezzlement since deliberate deception in billing is not the stealing of entrusted assets. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I made a simple small change to resolve that technical quibble.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Kopyto's side

Seems some users are intent on keeping out any mention of Kopyto's side regarding his disbarrment. Most of those users demonstrate a lack of knowledge regarding the situation, even though most of the pertinent stuff is right in the linked Wikipedia article cited to reliable sources. Kopyto was not charged and convicted by some court of law. He was disbarred by a disciplinary committee that was out to get him. It started with him taking on the courts in a case regarding police harassment of a socialist organization. He criticized the courts in the press for protecting the police and they tried to get him imprisoned for "scandalizing the court" eventually just resorting to barring him from court appearances.

While he succeeded on appeal in overturning the conviction as a violation of his constitutional rights, the court also criticized him for "unprofessional conduct" and that is what sparked off an investigation by the law society. Apparently after two years of not finding anything worthy of disbarment by chasing that particular claim, they came upon this so-called overbilling. He contended that because he was working for anyone who would come to him for legal help he basically worked 80 hours a week all year and as a result didn't do a good job of keeping track of what he would be owed so he ended up guessing or estimating when billing Legal Aid. Originally accusing him of deliberate fraud, the law society walked back that claim and there were never criminal charges or even a demand for reimbursement. He was in fact allowed to claim money that had been kept frozen during the proceedings.

The man has had a long-running history, recognized in every court proceeding, of fighting relentlessly on behalf of his clients who are typically disenfranchised, disadvantaged, and underprivileged. For that he has developed a confrontational relationship with the legal establishment in Canada who have constantly searched for any reason they could to lock him out of the system and enjoyed some partial success due to his poor ability to manage all the work he takes on for others. One might even say that Harry Kopyto is a "social justice warrior" in the real sense of actually fighting social injustices in the real world at great personal and professional cost to himself, rather than just ranting about naughty words and excessive boobage on Twitter or Tumblr or, you know, pushing his agenda on a wiki as it is with some people who shall remain nameless.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"He was disbarred by a disciplinary committee" You do realise that this describes every professional body? Would you try to argue for a plaintive passage defending Andrew Wakefield because the GMC is a professional body and not a court of law? If he is such a great worker on behalf of the downtrodden, why did he file suit against the wrong entity? How do you account for: "Among the findings of the tribunal hearing the case were that it was physically impossible for Mr. Kopyto to have billed the sums he did as the times billed exceeded the hours in the day.". And for the last time, we don't need his life story in this article. His disbarment is mentioned purely to illustrate how desperately the HBB must have cast around to find someone prepared to help them with their futile case. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

But that paints somebody who may have unknowingly sided with GG in a good light! Waa! :'( Keter (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the constant edit warring I think it's more like 'Waa! They won't allow me to whitewash this guy!' Typhoon (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Giving the other side is not "whitewashing" by any definition. I want his side presented rather than treating the accusations against him as unchallenged fact. That would be the rational thing to do after all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we include his life story, only what he said in his defense. Your other complaints are weak. CalgaryExpo has a whole bunch of different entities associated with it run by the same people, but not with the same tasks. The entity against which they filed suit initially is run by the guy who founded Calgary Expo and who still manages the expo. It is likely a business strategy expressly intended to protect against lawsuits either to limit liability or possibly to confuse those seeking a lawsuit. Andrew Wakefield's page on this site actually does frame the allegations against him as allegations, so comparing the situation does not favor your stance. The stuff about hours in the day is not something anyone can comment on without knowing how he was billing things and the actual work he was doing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Kopyto was not charged and convicted by some court of law. He was disbarred by a disciplinary committee that was out to get him.- The Devil's Advocate

No, they weren't out to get him. They were duly investigating a complaint, and said "disciplinary committee" was the Law Society of Upper Canada, the equivalent of a bar association. Investigating and disciplining such complaints (as well as licensing) are what said professional organizations are for.

Apparently after two years of not finding anything worthy of disbarment by chasing that particular claim, they came upon this so-called overbilling.- The Devil's Advocate

It's not "so-called" overbilling. Directly from the finding, to quote Wikipedia, Among the findings of the tribunal hearing the case were that it was physically impossible for Mr. Kopyto to have billed the sums he did as the times billed exceeded the hours in the day. You are not allowed to bill 34 hours in a 24-hour day. It's simply unethical, in either the USA or Canada, to do so.

so he ended up guessing or estimating when billing Legal Aid- The Devil's Advocate

Which is not allowed. In Canada OR in the USA. Period. It is against the rules. It is unethical. It leads to disbarrment.

Frankly, I think the Law Society of Upper Canada was too fucking nice, like Canadians are. If he had been here in the States and pulled that shit, the Bar Association would not only have disbarred him, he would be sued for the overage AND referred to a prosecutor for criminal charges. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, they were out to get him. There is no getting around that part because it all started with him badmouthing the court to the media. It is not as if the law society is headed up entirely by Legal Aid attorneys. You are going to have prosecutors, government lawyers, and corporate lawyers who will have little concern for Koptyo standing up to the establishment in the better interests of the less fortunate. Since you all are very rational then you should review the written dissent put out by one of the law society's benchers in Kopyto's defense and consider whether it creates reason to mention Kopyto's side on the matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, they were out to get him.- The Devil's Advocate

Sure they were. BigLaw, BigPharma, BigGov...these Bigs just get out of hand.

There is no getting around that part because it all started with him badmouthing the court to the media.- The Devil's Advocate

What he did was call attention to himself with antics. It's like our dear friend Roosh V. No one gave a damn who he was till he got loud and mouthy, and doing the loud and mouthy increases scrutiny. Inevitable, increased scrutiny will bring interesting/damning things to light.

You are going to have prosecutors, government lawyers, and corporate lawyers who will have little concern for Koptyo standing up to the establishment in the better interests of the less fortunate.- The Devil's Advocate

No shit, really? I guess it's a good thing that the Law Society of Upper Canada's job isn't giving a shit about standing up to the establishment for the better interests of anyone. That's not their fucking job, so why would they care? The Law Society's job is making sure the lawyers follow the professional rules. That's it.

Since you all are very rational then you should review the written dissent put out by one of the law society's benchers in Kopyto's defense and consider whether it creates reason to mention Kopyto's side on the matter.- The Devil's Advocate

I read it when I first learned about Kopyto. It doesn't create reason to mention Kopyto's side on the matter.

And in case you're curious, I'll tell you why. You can summarize the dissent written by the 1-out-of-40 in a single sentence. "Kopyto had good intentions so we should just forget about the whole thing." That, my friend, is a fucking lame-ass bullshit reason. It heartens me to know that out of 40 professionals, only one was so fucking stupid to say "Well, intentions!" You can ignore one dude drooling his sub-par IQ onto the table, but not 40.

As an analogy, it's like my hiking off to Tejas and shooting Andrew Wakefield in the face 6-7 times. I've done a good thing! I've stood up for vaccination and science! So since my intentions were awesome, I should just get this 1st-degree murder charge dropped!

Except no, that's not how it works. That not even how it should work. Intentions mean fuck-all. Only actions matter. So Tejas would be right to execute my ass. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you are a very rational person so surely you understand that sometimes people in power abuse that power and no organization or disciplinary proceeding can be reasonably treated as free of taint, especially when there are issues of systemic bias at play. While I am sure it is comforting to think those in power really do act only in the interests of fairness and upholding the rules, history is replete with examples of that not being the case.

You state you have read the dissent long before this, but you didn't seem to understand that Kopyto was not convicted in any court of law as there was never any court case. The summary you give is also rather inadequate as he makes a pretty compelling argument for why Koptyo's intentions matter and intent was very much a part of the law society's argument for disbarment. Initially, they tried to claim he deliberately asked for more money than owed, before walking back to saying that he knowingly and with intent asked for money knowing he might be asking for more than he owed.

Carey's point is that he also would have done so knowing he might be asking for less than he owed and the circumstances made it impossible for him to know for certain exactly how much time he had worked necessitating estimates that might not be precise. Were there no intent to gain money and it resulted in a net loss on his part then their only argument for misconduct falls apart.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

sometimes people in power abuse that power and no organization or disciplinary proceeding can be reasonably treated as free of taint- The Devil's Advocate

Which I'm not seeing in the case of Kopyto, sorry.

but you didn't seem to understand that Kopyto was not convicted in any court of law as there was never any court case- The Devil's Advocate

I understand it quite well. Doesn't matter. He was disbarred by the Canadian version of the bar association. Good enough for me, since it's the correct procedure for such an issue.

he makes a pretty compelling argument for why Koptyo's intentions matte- The Devil's Advocate

And that's something you don't understand. Intentions never matter. Intentions never matter. Intentions never matter. So it doesn't matter how compelling the argument is. There is only what was done, and can it be proven. This is called being "evidence-based".

Carey's point is that he also would have done so knowing he might be asking for less than he owed and the circumstances made it impossible for him to know for certain exactly how much time he had worked necessitating estimates that might not be precise. Were there no intent to gain money and it resulted in a net loss on his part then their only argument for misconduct falls apart.- The Devil's Advocate

Nope, sorry, still doesn't matter. It was against the rules. He broke the rules. He was punished for breaking the rules. That is all that matters. It's the only thing I care about. --Castaigne2 (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Not very rational of you to dismiss intention. On most legal matters intention is everything and it is especially the case when alleging fraud. If intention didn't matter, why would the disciplinary committee still try to make some sort of intent argument after Kopyto gave his defense? The dissent also questions whether the unintentional overbilling was as bad as claimed. According to Carey's dissent, it seems they based their overbilling claim in part on hours the average Legal Aid lawyer would get, despite acknowledging themselves that Kopyto worked far more than average and often multi-tasked at the same time he was doing more hours.

So their argument on overbilling is not only weak on intent in the sense he was estimating based off poor records and weak on injury given he probably got less money than he was owed due to underbilling, but it is also weak on math as they apparently judged his billing claims against the average hours worked by people in his profession despite acknowledging he went above and beyond others in terms of hours worked. Being off in your billing information may be irresponsible, but it isn't inherently against the rules or illegal. Do you honestly think every lawyer who bills a client or Legal Aid is going to log an exact fixed time down with perfect precision for every single billable activity?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem reluctant to address the claim that he billed for more hours than there are in the day. That goes beyond imprecision. And you keep returning to the 'not a court of law!' statement as though it matters, which it doesn't. It's as puzzling as afchief's insistence that the Supreme Court can't alter laws over on fstdt. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't addressed it simply because I don't know the specific details. There are certainly scenarios where I think that could happen, especially given the mention of him working far more than average hours and often performing multiple tasks at once. My point about it not being a court of law is because courts of law typically have higher standards of evidence and are not as subject to the kind of arbitrary determinations you will find in a private disciplinary proceeding. Not even the courts are immune from problems, but they are at least not as likely to use weak evidence or weak arguments when coming to a decision.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The details are in the disciplinary report. Might do you good to read it.

Also, amused that you consider billing 29 hours in a 24 hour day as being "weak evidence". You cannot do 29 hours in a 24 day period. Not. Physically. Possible. Using. The. Laws. Of. Time. And. Space.

Also also, it might interest you to learn that the Law Society Tribunal's authority is granted by the Ontario government through the Law Society Act and regulations made under the Act, as well as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. You can even learn how evidence is handled by reading their Rules of Practice and Procedure for disciplinary hearings, said rules having been duly approved by the government. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not found a copy of the disciplinary report online, could you point me to it? While one certainly cannot work more hours than there are in a day, I imagine that his billing was itemized and the total time billed in a day added up to more than 24 hours. Such a discrepancy can be very easily explained given what was stated about him juggling multiple cases at a time and working well over normal hours. Just a handful of instances where he counted twice the full time it took to perform two simultaneous tasks related to two different cases could be enough, especially if he estimated and put on more time than he should have put on it. You should also be aware the Law Society Tribunal is a recent creation, so the rules for it are not necessarily the same as those that applied in Kopyto's original disciplinary hearing. I did know that the Law Society is set up and governed by a legal act, but it is not a government body nor does its disciplinary process have the same functions or requirements as a court of law.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not found a copy of the disciplinary report online, could you point me to it?- The Devil's Advocate

You are able to order a copy from the Law Tribunal. They will mail it to you for a small reprinting fee.

While one certainly cannot work more hours than there are in a day, I imagine that his billing was itemized and the total time billed in a day added up to more than 24 hours. Such a discrepancy can be very easily explained given what was stated about him juggling multiple cases at a time and working well over normal hours- The Devil's Advocate

Still illegal. You are not allowed to do that, period. You are not allowed to charge more than 24 hours in a day, period. If you did charge 24 hours, it is assumed you did not eat, sleep, or do anything else but work for those 24 hours, period. Hours are charged in 6 minute increments, period. You are forbidden from working on multiple things at the same time, as this constitutes an ethical breach to your clients, period. Why you do not understand that what he did, for whatever reason he did it, is against the rules?

You should also be aware the Law Society Tribunal is a recent creation, so the rules for it are not necessarily the same as those that applied in Kopyto's original disciplinary hearing.- The Devil's Advocate

The same approved rules used then are used now. The only changes are ones related to technology. Easily found out when you read when the rules were created.

I did know that the Law Society is set up and governed by a legal act, but it is not a government body nor does its disciplinary process have the same functions or requirements as a court of law.- The Devil's Advocate

That does not make their decisions and rulings any less binding.

Why do you not admit the facts? That Kopyto broke the rules, whether intentionally or accidentally?

Why do you not understand that it is the breaking of the rules that matters, not his intentions?

Why are you bent on a course you cannot win since the facts contradict you? --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

TDA apparently cclaimed, that these rules are enforced arbitrarily.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC) 13:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Without providing anything but assertion. He's just full of shit. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Up to this point, you are the one who has done nothing but make assertions. According to you it is now not only forbidden for lawyers to ever have errors in their records, it is also forbidden to multitask. Given that both of these things are common, you really should provide some substantiation for claiming these things are against the rules or illegal. Nothing in the by-laws for the Law Society of Upper Canada indicates such things are a violation of the rules currently, and I doubt they were ever against the rules.

Then again, I guess this depends on how you define "the rules" as that can be a sticking point. Certain "rules" are little more than vague advisements that can be interpreted as loosely or as strictly as the interpreter desires. I mean, if the Law Society's decision were framed simply as being for incompetence citing poor record-keeping then that would be one thing (it could be shoddy record-keeping wouldn't have been enough to have him disbarred, which was the object of the proceeding), but the claim is specifically one that suggests he was bilking a government agency for money and that is the claim being presented uncritically as fact on this page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Being off in your billing information may be irresponsible, but it isn't inherently against the rules or illegal. Do you honestly think every lawyer who bills a client or Legal Aid is going to log an exact fixed time down with perfect precision for every single billable activity?- The Devil's Advocate

And this is where you show your ignorance. Yes, it is against the ethical rules of the bar associations in Canada AND the USA to imprecisely bill. In many jurisdictions in both the USA and Canada, it is illegal, and the bar association may forward charges to the authorities if they feel it warranted. And yes, every attorney who bills a client or Legal Aid is supposed to be precise and exact in their billable activities. If you know of any who do not, provide me the evidence and I will see them disbarred. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you'd have a hard time holding down a long term job, Devil's Advocate, considering how cool you are with misrepresenting job performance and defrauding billing agencies.Petey Plane (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Literally every source I look at suggest not only that you are completely wrong, but that imprecise billing and poor record-keeping is endemic in the legal profession and as Kopyto suggests was the case with him, the common outcome is losing money not gaining it. Weird for you to stake yourself as the person in the know on this when you wrongly thought Kopyto was convicted in a court and restored the false "embezzling" terminology. His case was widely publicized and the government, the people he had been offending with his words and legal practice, were supposedly the "victims" so the fact they didn't pursue so much as a reimbursement let alone attempt to have him charged speaks volumes on its own.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Show me these sources. Now. I'd like to see the evidence so I can file some bar complaints. Go on. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a New York Times article about it and it is actually from 1989 so it covers the exact year when Kopyto was being disbarred over the matter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't tell me anything. It doesn't provide me with evidence that I can use to file bar complaints.

Christ, you really are fishing here. You don't have shit. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Cute, but the point is that imprecise billing is not exactly a rare occurrence in the legal profession.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

If that is the point, then provide names, dates, and amounts billed imprecisely. In detail. Don't bother me with possibles and maybes and everyone says so. Come back to me when you have hard data. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You have yet to supply any actual evidence of anything you've claimed, whereas I have done exactly that. Sorry, but before you make ludicrous demands of others whose claims have been backed up with evidence you should back up your own claims with evidence. Given your stumbling up to this point, calling it a court case and restoring embezzling claims, you are the one who has less credibility.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This is utterly fatuous. The point is that they couldn't even find a real lawyer to take this on, so hired someone disbarred for fraudulent billing. There's no way to add disclaimers and qualifiers to that that don't make it hilarious, and there is no reason to do so - David Gerard (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't know why they chose him. If you read up on him he is still very well-respected among many and is still known to be a committed and relentless advocate for clients that he feels have been wronged by the system. Whatever you may think of GG or HBB, Kopyto is someone who has apparently done a lot of great work advocating for people who might otherwise not have had an advocate there to help them. Resisting the idea of so much as stating what he offered in his defense seems to be completely malicious and based more on who he is helping rather than any assessment of the man himself.-The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Given the Honey Badgers was really obviously another right-wing affinity fraud (and more on this just today), he sounds from the bar's opinion to be just the man for the job - David Gerard (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who would cite a partisan blog post based off a disgruntled employee's complaints as rock-solid proof of a serious criminal act would not see a problem with the issue I am talking about, but most people who have any sense of fairness would recognize that giving both sides of a story is important and proper.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

So outside of attacking the source you have no counter-argument? OK then. Typhoon (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The blog post doesn't have anything to do with Kopyto or the lawsuit. I'm not seeing any credible allegations in the post either. Nothing alleged in there rises to the level of fraud or even comes close to it. Looking at the actual conversations linked in the post I would say Futrelle is being highly selective in what he mentions in his post. Not that one should be surprised since it is a partisan self-published blog.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How much does this matter?

Could we spend this much time splitting hairs over the neo-Nazi upsurge in the US or altmed? kthx Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Not much at all, but Gators love obscuring the absurdity of their movement by running a Gish Gallop on anyone who points out that absurdity. Hence the walls of text they need to defend the indefensible. Petey Plane (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think allowing both sides of a situation to be mentioned when attacking a named individual is merely "splitting hairs", but is instead a rather serious thing that should be treated seriously.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe

Just summarize it as such:

"GGers say X, but anti-GGer's say anti-X."

And then everyone can stop fiddling with it. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the issue with that is the fact Kopyto's side of things was vigorously supported in an unprecedented manner by a bencher (essentially a board member) of the law society at the time. Kopyto's side should simply be presented as Kopyto's side and let people judge it on their own.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand just how desperate these people are for positive coverage. The problem isn't the article. - Kitsunelaine ^{「SJW Illuminati shill.」} 08:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This smells of balance fallacy. Typhoon (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It's entirely balance fallacy. The guy was disbarred for being a fraudulent fraud who blatantly defrauded people. An affinity fraud then hired him to pretend to do the legal work to justify their claim to be taking in money for legal work. It's comical bullshit to claim otherwise. There's no reason to write up the balance fallacy version here, but it's probably material for List of Gamergate claims, if we can find a claimant other than TDA beating the dead horse here - David Gerard (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

For a person who was so upset about losing some of your special powers on Wikipedia that you threatened to sue ArbCom for defamation to make them at least coddle your ego about it, you sure are quick with the baseless allegations of serious criminal activity.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Dude, you're currently banned from Wikipedia for harassing people. You have no right to criticize others. Typhoon (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrongly banned, but that has nothing to do with Gerard's insistence on branding Kopyto and the HBB as fraudsters.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There is never such a thing as wrongly banned. You are banned because you broke the rules. Deal with it.

And since everyone else here thinks Kopyto and HBB are fraudsters, I think you're suffering from Only Sane Man syndrome. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to findings of criminal action the opinions of random people on the Internet hold little weight, no matter how rational the people. As it concerns my ban, I am not sure it is rational to think people in authority can never wrongfully take action against someone, but you are certainly free to hold opinions about matters you know nothing about. Regardless, my situation on Wikipedia has nothing to do with this topic or people insisting on accusing others of serious crimes without compelling evidence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You were the first one who started bringing up unrelated Wikipedia stuff, hypocrite. Typhoon (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't unrelated, though, as I was simply criticizing how someone who cried defamation so quickly over reasons given for the removal of some admin tools would so readily engage in defamation of a much more serious nature. He should demonstrate the same level of concern regarding all questions of defamation, not just those affecting him. What you mention has nothing to do with the points being raised in this discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I blame it on the postmodernist SJW Zionist gators in the RationalWiki. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Katherine is not relevant.

The US senator is not relevant to Timeline of Gamergate, and if she was, by that logic everything online would be related to gamergate. Last I checked GG didn't set up protests outside of scientology buildings and so on. Keter (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that she is a critic of GG and their methods, and was swatted as a result of, if not that stance, then her related stances. Don't be dense. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where's the anonymous confession from GG this time? Maybe this should be added to some trawl about US senators, since she's one. She was Swatted because of her stance on swatting, don't be dense.Keter (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

And which group has a history of SWATting? It's relevant, even if not confirmed as directly related. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

much proof, many facts. Does this mean we have to include every anti-whatever advocate in here? You know Theresa May is trying to pass Snooper's charter again, let's add that.Keter (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The reasons are now in the article, so presumably your objections are completely answered and you now understand why your analogy unfortunately leaves you appearing not to be an entirely clear thinker - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Person A advocates against an act Group B has a history of performing. To prove Person A's point, that act is committed against them. That is relevant to an in-depth timeline of Group B. Whether Group B was responsible or not is irrelevant as to whether it's appropriate ti include on the timeline or not. If you can't grasp that, you are either a bloody moron or a dishonest fuckknuckle. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dishonest fucknuckle. It's always kinder to assume malice. Who really likes to be called stupid? --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If there is any evidence indicating a GG supporter committed any acts of SWATing, then they should also be added. In the absence of any evidence assigning guilt, it might be reasonable to assume GG did it if they were the only demographic to ever take issue with Katherine Clark. But if our only standard to assigning guilt is "which group with a terrorist past has written the most negative posts about her in internet comment sections", then she's gotten far more vulgar and harassing messages from pro-life zealots, as indicated by any article mentioning Clark's support of Planned Parenthood. So I'd sooner blame the larger political demographic with a longer list of terrorist acts to their name, that considers Clark to be literally genocidal. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Fatuous comparison: anti-abortionists aren't famed for swatting, Gamergate is notorious for it - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Anti-abortionists are famed for bombings, arson, physical assault, vandalism, and murder, on top of thousands of threatening phonecalls and letters. So I don't think making a phony 911 call is beyond them. And again, I couldn't find any citations or evidence in the article tying an instance of SWATing to a GG supporter, so those would also be a good addition. As it stands, if were to simply assign guilt to the group associated with the most SWAT calls, then Clark got the call from a counter-strike player or twitch viewer. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

yes, thank you proxy IP on a cracked webhosting box, for your insights into the philosophical notion of evidence - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, this is an office IP of a company with hundreds of on-site employees. Webhosting is one of our services though. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's your evidence. You can thank me by admitting your error. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, but I had already read the article and I'm not sure if I can call it evidence. The article itself accuses the SWATers of being "linked to" gamergate supporters without citations, info on the SWAT caller, or describing what the link is. I've read the baphomet thread containing the posters taking credit for the Galvez SWAT, and none claimed affiliation with the hashtag movement. Though, I'm going from memory and could be wrong. Maybe the Guardian is referencing a different baph thread? You'd have to give me a few hours to find it again since I'm sure as heck not going to go searching 8chan archives at work.

It also mentioned the Grace Lynn SWAT attempt. Like the Clark incident, it would be reasonable to assume that gamergate was responsible even without evidence- if that were the only group that Lynn has clashed with. She's also instructed the angered backers of her $40,000 Kickstarter to "suck my dick", upon revealing that no product would be delivered and half the funds were spend on personal expenses. This is in addition to a documented history of doxing GG opponents and supporters, and being a formerly active member of 8chan and the baphomet board. But I'm open to any new info. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

LoL, the evidence doesn't meet your exceptionally high standards of proof that you refuse to even entertain...but your speculation, alone and uncorroborated, that it's anti-abortionists is something you seem to at least entertain (and seem to believe)? When you have different standards of evidence this shockingly desperate it's pretty obvious what your bias is. Your mind seems made up who it's not in no uncertain terms. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The doxx were dropped and the SWAT organised on a GG board on 8chan. There's an image right there in the article. Fuck's sake, at least pretend to read the article fairly. If that's not enough for, at least, a very strong intimation, well, I don't know what else to tell you. There are none so blind as those that won't see. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I never claimed to know who did it, because I don't. And aside from "I don't think making a phony 911 call is beyond them", my comments about anti-abortionists were not speculative, they were statements of fact regarding their past actions, online presence, and their relationship with Katherine Clark. There totally is an online community that openly fantasizes about the death of Katherine Clark, but it resides on freerepublic and the comment sections of any article mentioning Clark and pro-choice initiatives. But so far, the only included evidence tying gamergate to these SWATing events is the fact that the victims expressed opposition to them at some point (with the exception of rep. Clark). As I pointed out, there's a number of other online groups that exceed gamergate in both size and in their expressed hatred for Grace Lynn and Clark. Also, the Guardian article posted also links to a Verge article about the Lynn incident. Did you read it? While it frequently mentions gamergate, it also acknowledges that the individual taking credit for the crime has never expressed any support or affiliation with the hashtag. The people organizing the SWAT on /baph/ boast about how pissed gamergators will get about getting blamed, in addition to disavowing the movement. The impression I get is that it's not a "GG board", but a public board that some GG members have previously posted to despite being a ridiculed minority. By this definition, nearly every online news publisher with a comment section would be considered a a "GG board". I'd direct link to the archive but I don't want to risk breaking a rule on personal info. But as others have pointed out, there's plenty of other evidence that I haven't seen, which is why I've twice encouraged it to be added. 64.38.194.13 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"The people organizing the SWAT on /baph/ boast about how pissed gamergators will get about getting blamed, in addition to disavowing the movement. The impression I get is that it's not a "GG board"" Now you're just being very, very silly. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll do a ctrl+f for "gamergate" and share any mentions from the thread where Lynn's SWATing was organized. Some quotes:

"Haha gamergate are gonna go ape shit crazy over this. Can't wait to see their reactions!"

"time for /gamergate/ to take the fall for us twice in two days. They'll be pissed."

"Any ghazi f_ggots in this thread get your facts right - we're not /gamergate/ and we're not 8chan as a whole, we're /baphomet/ and we do it because 9gag and a goat-headed demon told us to do it.".

"I'm not gamergate. I don't even play games. I just hate this f_ggot and his wholengang of betas whining about toxic masculinity. I run a /pol/ podcast and want to call this piece of shit live."

"Yeah, alternately sucking the cocks of both sides of the gamergate is hard work."

Sorry for the clumsy formatting, and for the language. If you see anything in there that I missed let me know. The thread does contain at least post that could be construed as a gator, in the sense that it's the only one that admits to browsing a self-titled GG board.: "honestly i have no idea what's going on. /gamergate/ has a post about you guys being on the top 25 and doxing people." 64.38.194.13 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You do realise that the only reason the /baph/ board was made was to keep doxxing activities off the main /gg/ board, right? That's historical. And for someone claiming not to take things at face value, you seem very eager to take /baph/ posters words as true. We're not suckers, even if you are. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 21:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that's new to me. I'm surprised the gamergate board on 8chan wanted to kick doxing activities off their board at all, since that is one of their main goals. So to clarify, any of the statements /baph/ members made in support for GG can be taken at face value and representative of the board community as a whole, and any claims disavowing GG should not? Though I wonder, what purpose does Gamergate and the "no-doxing boards" serve in aiding these users' illegal activities, if they're just going to act independently and deny all associations? 64.38.194.13 (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be foolhardy to take any statement at face value on a board that heavily endorses illegal acts; the one thing you can be sure of is that the people there will want to muddy the waters as to their actions and motives. GG itself, and its sundry boards and forums, still kinda sometimes want to project an illusion of respectability. Hence, the proliferation of ways of doing things at one remove, for plausible deniability (most noticeably 'neutrals' who are anything but). In theory, anyway. It never really worked, because GG were never the sharpest knives in the drawer. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 22:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

So to follow up, we know that gamergate supports these doxing and SWATing events, as demonstrated by the fact that GG banned these activities on their boards. However, most other websites (including RationalWiki) also forbid these activities, so that alone doesn't seem like the best qualifier. Is there anything else establishing the /baph/ posters in this thread either belonged to GG, or were supported by the group? Maybe through a comparison of IP addresses? 64.38.194.13 (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

If someone with "OG GamerGater" tattooed on their forehead taped themselves doing it with everyone who claimed themselves to be part of the movement or board standing around them while he SWATTED another person he wouldn't believe it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. There's no point in spending all of your energy trying to force it to, you just get angry at the horse and it's too stupid to understand why. There's better shit to do that's actually productive. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, horses aren't stupid. It's the human who's stupid for thinking the horse would suddenly feel the need to drink just because they want it to.142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:23, 4 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

Not sure if I would believe that. Everyone horse I know could be replaced by a giant 4 legged potato and their owners would have fewer problems and more affection. The point is that people shouldn't value their time so little that pissing it away trying to convince a jackass of what they refuse to acknowledge no matter what one could possibly do or say seems reasonable. Some people aren't fixable. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say horses can be forgiven for being jackasses considering humans are constantly dragging them around by a piece of metal in their mouth, though. And since when did docility equal intelligence? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:40, 4 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

Walton's "denial"

People keep restoring this claim about Jamie Walton "denying" something and it seems to be about her having an account on Kiwi Farms. Three different tweets are linked in the entry and they are the sole sources by all indications. Not a single one of these tweets claims she denied anything and no other sources are presented to suggest she was denying something. After asserting this denial as fact, the entry then suggests her denial was refuted by citing tweets about the operator of the Kiwi Farms account admitting to being Walton. So, this entry seems to be claiming Walton lied about being connected to an account on Kiwi Farms when there is no indication she ever denied it and the tweets only allude to unnamed individuals questioning her connection to the account.

As currently written, the entry is also incredibly confusing as it is not clear what Walton is denying and it only seems to be wrongly implied by the link that she is denying a connection to the account. Yet the entry then veers into talking about her asking GamerGate people to help fund her anti-sex trafficking charity and dissing Wu. There is also no indication that she denied either of those things. Even more confusing is the phrasing makes it seems like her asking for money for her foundation somehow refutes her denial of whatever it is she is accused of denying. It does not seem particularly rational to constantly restore this phrasing when I attempt to change it and those doing so have not offered a single explanation. Can anyone explain what they think is so horrific about my changes?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ye, TBH at this time it's not clear that TDA is the one edit warring. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)